HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 04-12
Meridian City Council Meetina
April 12.2005.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, April 5, 2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, and Charlie
Rountree.
Members Absent: Christine Donnell.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Brad Watson, Bill Musser, Ron
Anderson, Joe Silva, John Overton, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
--L Shaun Wardle _Christine Donnell
--L Charlie Rountree ~Keith Bird
--1L Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the City Council meeting. It is
Tuesday, April 12th. It is five minutes after 7:00. We will open the meeting with roll call
attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. If you will, please, all rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Bart Coleman St. Luke's Chaplain:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.3 is our community invocation, which we will be led by
Bart Coleman, who is with St. Luke's. Chaplain. If you will all join us in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Thank you for joining
us.
Coleman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Let us pray. Almighty
God, we give you thanks that you provide for the work of this community through the
different gifts that the varied members of this Council, the Mayor, and the community
bring. Help us to recognize and act upon every opportunity for service. Guide our
diversity by your one spirit that everything we think, say, and do may be for the common
good of all of your people. This we pray in your name, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 2 of 58
De Weerd: Thank you. It's nice to have you here. Item No.4 is adoption of the
agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, the fire department has requested, under the approval of
the beer, wine and liquor license renewal, that we move the Vina Chinese Restaurant to
7-B. They have some questions. And the Item F resolution number is 05-468. And
Item G is 05-469. Under Department Reports we'd like to add Item D, which is Public
Works, Brad Watson. And Item 16 on the regular agenda is Ordinance No. 05-1139, 17
is Ordinance No. 05-1140, and No.18 is 05-1141, and 19 is 05-1142. And with that I
would move that we approve the revised agenda.
Rountree: So moved.
De Weerd: Is that a second?
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have two motions and a second. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approve Minutes of March 15,2005 Pre-Council Meeting:
Approve Beer. Wine. and liQuor License Renewals:
Albertsons #164 - Beer & Wine
Albertsons #180 - Beer & Wine
A New Vintage Wine Shop - Beer & Wine
Hark's Corner - Beer & Wine
Dancing Dog Coffee House - Beer & Wine
Whitewater Pizza & Pasta - Beer & Wine
Wingers - Beer & Wine
JB's Restaurant - Beer & Wine
Wal.Mart Store - Beer & Wine
Andrade's - Beer & Wine
Water Main Easement for Trout. Weeks & Nemec Law Office by
EIG Commercial, LLC:
Water Line Easement for Julie Subdivision (Church Property):
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 3 of 58
E.
Water Main Easement for Church Property (proposed Julie
Subdivision) by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:
F.
Resolution No.
Fees:
05-468
Parks and Recreations New
G.
Resolution No. 05-469 VAC 05-002 Request for a
Vacation of existing power lines, sewer, irrigation and storm water
drainage easements for Boise Vallev Commons by CSHQA -
2400 East Overland Road:
H.
Well 20B - Construction Services Aareement with CH2M Hill:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that on the Consent Agenda that Vina Chinese Restaurant be pulled to
7-B and that Item F be noted as Resolution No. 05-468 and Item G be 05-469 and I
move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to
attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no further
changes, Ms. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
Mayor's Office
1.
Employee Service Awards:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No.6 are the Department Reports. Tonight I have
the honor to recognize a couple of our staff members, our city staff members. It's
always a great opportunity to recognize our staff for longevity with the city and I don't
know if I even see some of these people here. I would like to recognize those with five
years of service. We have Terry Anderson, Joe Silva, and Greta Seals. If you will
come forward? We just want to thank you for the years of service with the city. It's with
dedication and long-term employees like this that we are able to do real extraordinary
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 4 of 58
things that we do in the city. Greta, do you want to come forward as well. The city has
been able to do some pretty amazing and pro-active things and I believe it's truly
because of the dedicated city employees that we have. So, it is my honor to recognize
your years of service tonight and, Terry, I have a certificate. Thank you. We appreciate
you coming tonight. And, lastly, I'd like to recognize one of our police department
personnel, Captain John Overton. He has been with us for 15 years and he certainly --
we have seen him move up through the ranks and continue to be amazed at the good
work that he does and appreciate your years of service, Captain, congratulations. Mr.
Nary, I think that HR needs to recognize Councilman Bird for his years of service, so if
we can get that on the agenda --
Bird: Oh, you have already given me one.
De Weerd: Oh, did I?
Bird: But you didn't give me a --
De Weerd: The what?
Rountree: He didn't get the button.
Bird: I didn't get the button.
Nary: Different mayor.
Bird: Different mayor.
2.
Farmers and Merchants State Bank Old Bank Buildina:
De Weerd: Sorry, you just didn't choose the right mayor to serve under. Okay. Item
No.2 is regarding the Farmers and Merchants State Bank. I have kind of briefly
mentioned this to you and we talked about the offer of Farmers and Merchants on their
vacated building that was going to be torn down. In light of the shortage here and the
lack of space that we have at City Council, they have offered use of that building if we
would just pay for the utilities and the taxes. I believe that Anna has looked at the
Conditional Use Permit for the new building. We would have to go in and modify the
CUP to extend the date of demolition of the building for two years and -- in order for us
to do that and we can proceed along that line if you approve this tonight. The cost for
utilities and taxes would be a little over 1,200 dollars a month. Claire Bowman with
Meridian Development Corporation would also like to have an office in that building and
so that cost would be slightly less with the participation of the MDC upon their board's
approval. So, Council, I would open up any questions you might have.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 5 of 58
Bird: What is your plans of who you are sending over there?
De Weerd: I think Dean would like you to talk into the microphone.
Bird: Oh, I'm not talking into the microphone. I'm sorry. Who do we have plans to take
over there at this point for a couple of years?
De Weerd: We discussed it at the department directors meeting today. We wanted to
first get approval from Council before we had serious discussions about it. At this point
a couple of different personnel have been mentioned to move over there. I guess if you
have direction on that, otherwise, we will just, as a city hall -- staff we will discuss it and
see which would be the least disruptive.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I have two questions. One that Councilman Rountree raised the last time we
had this discussion and that's to the fitness of the building from a public city hall office
standpoint.
De Weerd: I did a walk through, along with Claire Bowman, and it's in really good
condition. The bank will also put some additional work into it at their expense if we
desire to go ahead and move forward.
Wardle: Okay. And, then, my follow-up question would be the -- 1,200 dollars is the
initial utility cost. What are the additional costs from a staffing level, departments,
furniture, phone lines, increased technology expense -- those are some of the numbers
that I would like to see that are outside our city budget currently.
De Weerd: Those figures -- any staff that we would move over there currently has a
desk and a chair and a computer and those kind of things. We are not talking new
employees. They all are equipped at this point. I believe that Mr. Nary was going to
look at phone expense and, Mr. Nary, did you have information on that?
Bird: I did, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I did talk to Terry Paternoster. He
cornered me yesterday and talked some potential -- both the cost of the computer
needs for that building and -- it's dependent on a couple of things. Obviously, one, is
the number of people, which departments would be the ones moving, would drive what
that cost would be. The only one that has some concern, he was going to get some
figures that we would have to bring back, would be in the WAN program that we have
been going forward with, our computer program, we didn't contemplate that building as
part of it, so there may be a hub cost with that that may -- may. or may not be a problem
figure, but he was going to have to determine what that specific amount would be, to
make sure that building would be part of the WAN. The other issue would be the phone
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 6 of 58
system and that was -- we had a lengthy discussion about that. We would be looking at
the potential for different or new phone system when we move to a new City Hall and
Madam Mayor's thought was considering maybe the possibility of testing out some type
of pilot program through the phone system there, since we would have to have a stand-
alone phone system there anyway, we couldn't be hooked through the City Hall system
the way it's set up now anyway. And so he was going to get those costs. I don't have
either of those figures. I just spoke with him yesterday about exploring those things and
so he will get those figures and get them back to Madam Mayor.
Wardle: Thank you. And also to address some of those concerns -- and we can bring it
back on the IT side. We have got cabling -- if I remember correctly, that WAN per
department or per building was 5,000 dollars. Those are cost considerations that I'd like
to see, along with probably some need for security or some of those issues. So, I would
-- my personal preference -- Madam Mayor, is looking for a go ahead tonight. I have
got some unanswered questions, but would be willing to consider it if we can get some
of those answered. I simply don't think that if -- if it were 1,200 dollars I would certainly
probably support that, but I see that there are some hidden costs -- or not necessarily
hidden costs, but costs that we are not contemplating in that 12,000 dollars.
De Weerd: Okay. Just to keep in mind that the bank is fully wired. So, everything is
still intact, because they certainly were online and wired to a good capability. So, I don't
think that there would be any wiring costs additional to what our needs would be. But
we can get those figures to you. I'll try and get those to you next week. I guess what
we would like to know is is this something that would be considered? If so, we do need
to move forward on an application to modify the Conditional Use Permit, because there
was a deadline for demolition. We would also need to notify ACHD that the demolition
would be temporarily suspended until a date certain.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Councilman Wardle wholeheartedly on getting the cost, but I also
believe that by the CUP that we need to enact on the delay of the demolition or we are
going to have our own CUP out of order. So, I don't know what the rest of -- the other
two councilmen think, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't know why we can't process
the starting of the changing of the CUP myself.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I certainly have some thoughts on the issue, but I'm going to have to abstain
because of a conflict.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 7 of 58
De Weerd: Okay, So, would you feel comfortable at least having staff proceed with the
paperwork for modification of the CUP? Certainly, we can withdraw that if it seems
necessary.
Wardle: I would feel comfortable with that. Through the modification of our process, I
believe that there is a public hearing and when the application was approved there was
the expectation from surrounding property owners and the community that that would be
demolished and so would like the opportunity for them to go through the city process.
So, I would be in favor of starting the process.
De Weerd: Okay. And would that be at our expense? It would certainly be my
recommendation.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: You know, I just wanted to --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have no problem with it being at our expense, if they are going to give us that --
you know, that's a lot cheaper than the going rate being rented around the city of
Meridian right now, I would have no problem with it. If Councilman Wardle agrees with
that.
Wardle: I would agree that we could proceed at our expense. I believe that we
potentially would be waiving some fees from that application, so the out-of-pocket
expense would be less -- would be more staff time.
De Weerd: Anna, do you have something to add?
Canning: Yes. I was just going to state that the hard costs would be the noticing in the
paper, which normally the clerk's department picks up those fees. And, then, the other
hard cost would be the posting. And, normally, we pick up those fees. On the
annexations we have done we have also picked up the newspaper notification ones,
too. So, whichever department you would like to come out to. I think the two things
together come to about 500 dollars, something like that.
Wardle: Thank you,
3.
Appointment of Youth Member to Parks and Recreation
Commission:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay, And the third item -- I don't know, is Trevor here this
evening? I don't see him. On the youth member for the Parks and Recreation
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 8 of 58
Commission, we amended our ordinance last fall to add a youth member to that
commission. Trevor Osborn is one of our Mayor Youth Council members and he has an
interest in parks and recreation. The Parks and Recreation Department has already
given him some information. I would like to have - I am recommending appointing him
to the -- as the youth member to the Parks and Recreation Commission and would need
your approval.
Bird: And what is - Trevor what?
De Weerd: Trevor Osborn.
Bird: Osborn. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we approve the appointment of Trevor Osborn to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B.
Fire Department - Chief Ron Anderson
1.
Memorandum of Understanding for Local Union to test
for the position of driver:
De Weerd: Okay. Fire department. Chief Anderson.
Anderson: Thank you, Mayor. You guys should have before in your Council packets a
memorandum of understanding and what this is is -- as you know, we have a contract
with the firefighters union that includes a description of how we do promotional exams
within the fire department. However, due to our rapid growth within the fire department
over the last few years, we are not able to fulfill to the extent of the contract some of the
requirements for testing and promotion for new driver operators within the fire
department. There is a planned opening of a new station for later on this year and with
the opening of that station we would request that you provide authorization for the
Mayor to sign this memorandum of understanding that will allow us to test 12 of the
current firefighters to driver operator and they will still have to meet all the requirements
that are spelled out in the contract, with the exception of the time and grade, simply
because they haven't been firefighters there long enough to fulfill the contract
requirement. So, this is a one-time exemption for the time and grade requirement and
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 9 of 58
once we get back on track, then, that time and grade requirement would still be there for
future promotions. So, we would ask that you authorize the Mayor to sign this MOU.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: I guess, Chief Anderson, I would ask what I asked of you earlier. It says the
six open positions of driver -- of driver. If they all 12 pass, would they be eligible for
step up?
Anderson: Madam Mayor, that would yet to be negotiated as we enter into contract
negotiations with the firefighters union. The contract is due to expire this October. Our
current contract does not allow for step up qualifications. So, that is something that we
would have to negotiate.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, it doesn't allow for this either.
Anderson: I'm aware of that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no more discussion, I'd move that we approve this Memorandum of
Understanding and for the fire chief and the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is -- on my copy -- has yours been changed?
Bird: No. Not the one that's in here, but --
De Weerd: Okay. We will need to update the signature line to reflect Chief Anderson's
name.
Bird: That's why I said fire chief. I didn't say any name.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. And I had a second?
Wardle: Yes.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 100158
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I just want to, for the record, disclose that this is a Memorandum of
Agreement between the city and the union and that I do have a relative on the list of
potential firefighters. So, I will be voting on this motion, but just to recognize that that
situation exists.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. He still has to pass.
Rountree: He has to pass.
De Weerd: Okay. Ms. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C.
Planning and Zoning Department - Anna Powell
1.
Request for Clarification and Permission for Dean
Langley Development Agreement:
De Weerd: Item C. Planning and Zoning.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is a request for a clarification
of the transient development agreement for -- just a moment. For Dean and Julia
Langley. In 2001 the city entered into a development and consent to annexation
agreement with the Langleys and it was associated with the Autumn Fair, Tricia's Sub
annexation and plat. The Langleys have a one-acre out parcel at the southwest corner
of Black Cat and Ustick and that was left out of Autumn Fair annexation. But the
agreement says that -- states that the connection to city water and sewer shall not be
required until property owner or agent applies for any type of building permit to alter
existing improvements or construct new ones. And that is -- that is the -- the part of the
development agreement that's under consideration tonight. It's now being marketed by
Holland Realty and the broker is getting inquiries as about what kind of improvements
can be made. You know, can they get an accessory structure permit through the
county? Can they get a remodel permit through the county? What was specifically
meant by that statement at the time the development agreement was done. Now, I was
not here at the time. I think that Mr. Hawkins-Clark thought that the intent was just to
not allow redevelopment or large new structures or kind of a re-use of the site, but as
legal staff and as I read it, it does say any building permit. So, the Langleys are here
before you tonight to ask for clarification on what that means.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the representative here? Mr. Langley.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 11 of 58
Langley: I'm Dean Langley. I currently reside at 3185 North Black Cat Road. Madam
Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could make some comments.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Langley: Thank you. I don't know if the letter that I wrote to the city and was submitted
through P&Z is in your packets or not, which, hopefully, it's helpful. You heard Anna
mention about the one acre out parcel and I have referenced 2.07 acres here. After
Autumn Fair and Tricia's Sub was approved and started, the developer chose not to
purchase 1.07 acres that was an odd shaped piece adjacent to our one acre out parcel,
which was fine with us. They just didn't assume ownership of it and final agreement and
so we ended up with 2,07 acres. The city attorney at that time evidently felt that we
didn't need to go back and rewrite all of the documents that had described that, so, as a
result, the 1.07 acres directly on the corner of Black Cat and Ustick is in the city. The
one acre that our house is on is in the county. So, they are two separate parcels that
we have been using as a residence. There is pasture there and having existing ag use,
small things like that. So, now that we are -- having people being interested in it, we are
just seeing that it would really be helpful if they had an idea of the kind of things that the
city sees that would be a fit and those that wouldn't and so the two things that I have
specified here as possible ideas, obviously, you may have a better idea on that, is,
again, possible remodel of existing residence and garage, as desired by the owner
agent, subject to P&Z's staff approval and, then, secondly, for the possible addition to
the structures there of another 900 square foot outbuilding, again, for personal use and
subject to P&Z staff approval. I'd stand for any questions that you have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Langley. Okay. What would you like to instruct staff to do
here?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, if we just -- if we just approve the changing of the development agreement,
would that be sufficient for you? You would know what needs to be changed and stuff?
Canning: I believe we'd have to come through with a miscellaneous app for a
development agreement amendment, wouldn't we? I think the question tonight is is that
what you want us to do. It triggered a sewer and water extension is what it triggered.
There aren't any real planning issues associated with this, other than it was part of the
development agreement. So, we were unclear on how to direct Mr. Langley.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 12 of 58
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I was asked a question by Mr. Hawkins-Clark on this interpretation and when I
put my fake judge hat on and I look at 5.2.3, it says any type of building permit. So, that
tells me any means any, unless this Council decides that any is limited to certain types
of things or certain types of uses. This contemplated interpreted by the Council as not
falling under that requirement of any type of building permit. The concern -- if you want
to direct staff -- rather than amending the development agreement, if you want to direct
staff as to what that interpretation should mean, I believe that's adequate, as long as
that's in the record, or if you would like us to return an order reflecting what your
interpretation of that is. The only slippery slope, I guess, I would be cautious of is we
have lots of development agreements out there and they are all subject to interpretation
of all of these conditions. You know, what's being requested as possibilities for this, I
guess you have to look at what does this Council do today, what would you do today if
this was before you on whether or not to -- to even allow this type of out parcel type of
annexation. But, you know, when the request here is possible remodeling of the
existing -- the existing residence and garage, remodeling takes lots and lots of different
views as to what's a remodel and I think the intent of the original language, even though
I wasn't here either at the time, any is pretty easy, and so if you want to fashion
something else, you certainly have the ability to do that, but, again, it certainly subjects -
- the Council speaks many times about the concern of setting a precedent that you have
to live with later on something else and that's the only concerns I have is some of these
things are very very gray and fuzzy as to what they would like to do without applying as
a building permit. So, I don't know if that's of any help or not.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, obviously, not having been here for this application, my
interpretation of someone who wants to remodel or improve their property for the
current use it is, which is a single family residential dwelling, in my opinion, some sort of
an interior remodel of that or even some facade improvements to improve the
appearance, in my interpretation, would be -- would be fine under the development
agreement. Accessory use structures, other building permits which add square footage
and add utilization of the property, would probably be outside the scope of what I think
the original intent was.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'd like some guidance from Brad in terms of sewer-ability and access to
water.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 12,2005
Page 130f58
Watson: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, this is kind of blindsiding me a little
bit.
Rountree: Sorry.
Watson: There is water and sewer in Black Cat Road. I don't know exactly where this
structure is and can't recollect exactly why it wasn't included with the original
application, but there is sewer that goes up Black Cat Road passed Ustick to serve
Bridgestone Subdivision. That water line has been looped through there for quite some
time.
Rountree: That's what I needed to know. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Canning.
Canning: I, perhaps, didn't answer Mr. Bird's question very well the first time. The one
planning issue that is associated with this is now when a subdivision comes we insist
that they include the existing home as part of the subdivision and even provide access
to that home as part of the subdivision. This was, obviously, done before that time, but
the Council has been supportive of that in current applications, too, to require that they
come in to get -- to get a complete -- avoiding the Swiss cheese factor that we are
somewhat famous for in our annexations, unfortunately, because we go by property by
property, but filling in some of those gaps in the annexations.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have enough information to give staff some direction
on this?
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, not having the plat map in front of me, is the site design
that it could redevelop and take access from the subdivision, as well as utilities and
become part of what -- is that an R-4 subdivision?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there doesn't appear to be a stub
street. There does appear to be a pathway stub to the location that may accommodate
a driveway. I think the owner has offered to give you more information on that if you so
choose.
De Weerd: Mr. Langley, if you could help us with that.
Langley: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in our dealings with the developer,
I'm holding them accountable. We came up with some improvements that we felt
helped the value of the property and its ability to tie in at a future time and that included
an eight inch sewer coming in through the back of the property in the middle of the --
there is a common lot there, this pathway that she referenced, that's 20 feet wide,
thinking that that could be a future ingress-egress for private use or something like that.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 14of58
And also two oversized pressurized stubs to maximum Nampa-Meridian Irrigation specs
were also put in on the property. So, you know, that would help facilitate those kinds of
issues in the future. So, we hope that would make it much more compatible in the
future and we realize that by signing the development agreement we waived all rights
to, you know, most all these -- of the property. That's fine. We know that that's true.
We just are hoping that with the specifications there, that would help a prospective
buyer want to inquire and work with the city and make sure that it was compatible and in
line with what the city feels is the best use for that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Langley: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Did that answer your question?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, you really want to make it look like Councilman Wardle
could run a faster meeting than me. Can't you?
Rountree: He can.
De Weerd: That's because he can make a motion, I can't.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'm still a little confused as what's being asked. I mean the
development agreement is very clear to me, that the owner or future agent, if they plan
on remodeling this and need any kind of a permit -- they don't need a permit to paint,
but they will need a permit to do electrical or do structural things. That's clear. You
need a permit or rebuild a new building, you're going to connect to city and water. But
not anyone can do what's the best use out there. The best use out there is whatever
the Camp Plan and the zoning map shows. So, if that's residential, then, at this point
it's residential. So, I'm not sure what guidance we have to give, other than what's
already in the Camp Plan and what's in the development agreement.
De Weerd: I think, Mr. Rountree, that's what they are looking for is the interpretation of
the Council and how you -- if you wanted to do anything.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd:Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess to make it clear, the staff's interpretations at this. point for the Langleys,
both from the Planning and Zoning and my office, has been all means all and in all
means just exactly what that says. Any type of building permit. What Mr. Langley is
asking is for a different interpretation and if that's the Council's desire, then, that's just
the direction we need. If your interpretation is all means all and that means any type of
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 15 of 58
building permit, if it requires a permit they have to connect to the city sewer and water
and ask to be annexed, then, you don't need to do anything, other than make that clear.
If you want something else, then, that's the direction you make,
De Weerd: Okay. So--
Rountree: Madam Mayor, to get this off dead center, I move that we instruct staff to
interpret paragraph 5 dash -- or .2.3 when it talks about property owner and agent
applies for any type of building permit, that that means all the building permits that
would be required to alter or add a new building on those particular lots. Does that
make it unclear?
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to clarify and support the staff's interpretation. If
there is no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Mr. Bird,
did you vote?
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: Sorry, I didn't hear you, Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D.
Brad Watson - Public Works.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item--
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just a point of clarification from Mr. Nary or the staff. If this
comes through redevelopment, that parcel needs to be annexed into the city and, then,
added to the -- okay. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Item D is Public Works. Mr. Watson.
Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, we are revisiting an issue that we discussed
last week when -- this has to do with property located in the southwest corner of Tully
Park owned by Dan Richards. We spoke on the phone Monday morning and there is
some disagreement over the direction that Council gave. What I have done today --
had staff do, anyway, was put together another map that has a little more detail than
what I provided last week. This map, although it's somewhat hard to read, because the
print is very small, shows two sewering options, One is constructing a sewer main from
the intersection of Chateau and Linder Road north about 130 feet and, then, with a
service line to the right of way line. The other option is to -- as was discussed last
week, have a service traverse between those two houses up to the rear of the house.
Staff contacted Mike Rice Excavation today, who does a lot of these smaller jobs for us,
and he provided some quotes. To construct this main line north in Linder Road with
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 16 of 58
eight inch sewer and another manhole and ACHD permits, it comes in just slightly under
19,000 dollars to serve this property. As a reminder, all the surrounding property is
served by other existing sewer. The difference in what we thought Council's direction
was last week, really, is between this segment here, that traverses between the two
houses. It was my understanding that we would stub out to the right-of-way line. It was
Mr. Richards' understanding that we would provide that to the property line, however we
did it. The costs are printed on this map. They are probably pretty difficult to read, but
this segment from here -- from the sewer trunk in Chateau north to the right-of-way line,
the cost provided to us was 4,620 dollars. There is an ACHD asphalt repair amount for
about 2,350 dollars. The one thing that we didn't think about or realize until today, was
that this water line is made up of material that is rather old and it's quite fragile. We
don't have much of this in the city, but this is one spot where we do. This section of
water line would have to be replaced and the cost for that was estimated at a little over
three thousand dollars. So, all told, it looks like the city costs just to stub out to the
right-of-way line are 10,015 dollars, based on this quote provided to us. The remainder
to get it from the right-of-way line, up to Mr. Richard's property line at 4,720, plus a small
amount to actually connect on site. So, we are back here, I guess, just to get definite,
specific direction from Council. Mr. Richards is here tonight. If you would like to ask
him any questions at all. With that I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council.
Rountree: I have no questions. I'll restate the motion if it need be, but you have some -
Richards: I'm Dan Richards, live at 8980 South Linder in Meridian. I would like to point
out several things that got said last Tuesday night and when I left the meeting last
Tuesday night I was totally under the understanding that the city was going to be
responsible for bringing the sewer to the property line, not just to the right of way, and I
realize that that was the motion. But I talked to Brad Watson; he informed me that it
was only going to be brought to the right of way, which is a small percentage of the cost.
I'd like to ask a question of the city. How is it fair to me, a property owner in the city
limits, to have to pay 18,000 dollars or so to bring sewer to my house, when for
approximately four years, ever since I bought the house, I paid sewer bills each month.
The city and myself, everyone, thought that this house was on sewer. I imagine the
property owner before myself even paid sewer bills. So, it seems that somehow it was
a huge oversight on the city's part that the sewer stub was never ran to this property. I
have been told that this house was at one time owned by the Tullys, whom the park
around it is named after. This property, obviously, got sub-divided; a park got built
around the property. Linder Road got improved. City water got run to this property.
Sidewalks were poured. The lot around this house got approved. That was too small to
ever have a replacement septic tank or for fill drains. The minimum now I believe is one
acre. So, all this happened -- somehow all this because the city's oversight that this
house never got sewer stubbed, but now it's my problem and my expense to have a
sewer stub run to this house. I believe this is unfair and I ask you to, please, state how
that's not. I'd like to point out something that was said last night when Mr. Watson
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 170f58
asked Mr. Nary for his legal advice and Mr. Nary said: Thanks. I guess, Mr. President,
Members of the Council, I think as with any other property, I think it is the city's -- I think
as Mr. Watson has already stated, it is generally the city's responsibility to bring the
service from the public street access to this property, so that they can -- they can
access it when they want to. I think Mr. Watson's concern, as he expressed initially, is if
you bring that line up the street 120 feet, it will only serve this property and no one else,
but from the city's standpoint, I think there is a responsibility to be able to publicly serve
that property within our city limits in some fashion, whether it's through the other yard,
because it may be cheaper, if there is an easement there it may be less expensive, but I
think it is the city's responsibility to at least provide access to the sewer for the property
owner. They will have to connect it from the connecting point on the property line to
their house and that's their responsibility to do that under our ordinance. But I think
that's the hesitation. I think I understood from Mr. Watson -- and he can correct me, but
I think it's -- the only concern is that it's only going to serve one house and it will likely
never serve anyone else, except that one house. But from a responsibility standpoint, I
do think that it's the city's responsibility to at least get it to the line, to the property line.
Having said that, I'd like to quote something else. Mr. Watson asked Mr. -- I'm sorry --
Mr. Rountree -- this is Rountree. He said: Brad, do you have a recommendation? We
have to start somewhere. Watson: Council member Rountree, our new sewer
ordinance says that the city is responsibility for the structural integrity of the sewer until
it reaches the property line. I guess I'm inclined to think that the city has some
responsibility. Actually, in the right of way is how the ordinance reads. We are
responsible for it in the right of way. So, I think there may be some responsibility for the
city to at least get it out of the right of the way as far as the service running through and
to the site. We historically haven't been in the business of paying for or constructing
services through private property, but, again, we have never ran into this situation
either. Mr. Rountree, then, made the motion to stub -- for the city to pay to the right of
way and, then, Watson: Council member Rountree, if we have -- if we are doing a brand
new trunk through a subdivision, we stub that sewer out to the property line from the
main. So, I ask that I at least get the same service provided that new subdivisions get.
At this point I'm willing to hook up from my property line, however which way Mr.
Watson sees fit to bring it to -- up Linder or if they want to go through the easements
through the neighbors, through Chateau, and I'll pay for this myself from my property
line and all other expenses I feel should be paid by the city and I feel that that is in a
way being generous that I even pay for that. And so I would like everyone to think if
they were in that -- in my position, how is it fair for me to pay all that when the city
screwed up and they screwed up a long time ago. Mr. Watson told me himself that his
department is very tight fisted, he called it. Told me that on the phone. He will admit to
it. Which that's great for the city, but this here was a screw up that needs to be taken
care of because -- by the city, not by me a property owner.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sir, do you have a -- do you have word for word the motion?
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 180f58
Richards: Yes.
Bird: Read that, would you, please.
Richards: This is from Rountree. Having heard, then, that, then, the suggestion, at
least at this point, is that Meridian be responsible for the stub out to -- through the right
of way. It's a question mark. And, then, it did get approved. And I -- there was so
much talk about the property line, I left here feeling great. And from what Mr. Nary said
and the whole situation, I'm not happy with it at all and I feel that it needs to be changed.
It should be brought to my property line. As a matter of fact, I don't even think I should
have to pay to hook up to the -- the fees, I'm willing to do that, I'm willing to pay the fees
and hook up, but I really don't think I should have to pay for fees.
De Weerd: I wasn't here, so I can't add too much, but I think the four years of payments
you stated you paid, they were refunded to you, were they not?
Richards: They were. And I asked and that was a big screw up.
De Weerd: Okay. But they were refunded.
Richards: They were refunded, with no interest, and that, you know, wasn't a huge
expense anyway, but the point is is that the city thought it was sewer, have been billing
me, probably the owner before, they thought it was on city sewer. It should have been.
It definitely should have been. It's not a big enough lot to have a septic tank. There is
no room for replacement, definitely, you know, so it's a forced issue that I hook up now
and this house is not even -- it's -- I won't be doing it.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor:
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Same as last week. It's the same information. The applicant forgot to
mention that he was reimbursed the bill and that's unfortunate. My motion last week
was that the city take care of the cost of stubbing the sewer line to the right of way line
and to be very clear, the right of way line on Chateau, and that the property owner be
responsible for connecting from his property to the right of way line and that's my motion
yet again.
De Weerd: And that's just clarifying it and there is no motion from Council to change
that or reconsider? Okay.
Item 7:
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
B.
Approve Beer. Wine. and Liauor License Renewals:
Meridian City Council
Aprii 12, 2005
Page 19 of 58
Vina Chinese Restaurant - Beer & Wine
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7 we moved from the Consent Agenda, which was a beer and
wine license for Vina Chinese Restaurant. Is there discussion on that? Joe?
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on March 11 we were out there for an
inspection at the restaurant and we advised them that they were going to have to
update their hood and duct system and to date they have not completed those upgrades
and so with the site inspection, a visit today, they had not yet completed those repairs
and we are just requesting that that be removed from the Consent Agenda as approval
for the beer and wine license.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Does that table on --
De Weerd: Well, you just asked it to be pulled and considered once that work is done?
Silva: That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, we don't need a motion, do we?
Nary: No.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would like to -- Mr. Silva, do the owners realize that their liquor license and --
isn't being approved? Did we -- have we told them or --
Silva: They were apprised of that, that they had not -- because they had not complied
with our request to upgrade the system, they were advised of that and I made a face -- I
made an on site visit today to convey that to them.
Bird: Thank you, Joe.
Item 8:
FP 05.024 Request for Final Plat approval for 48 single-family building lots
and 2 common lots on 16.51 acres in a R-4 zone for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No.6 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - south of East Overland
Road and east of South Eagle Road:
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 20 of 58
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 8 is FP 05-024. I will start with staff
comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the sixth phase of Sutherland
Farms Subdivision. It is located on -- about a half-mile east of Eagle Road and a half
mile north of Victory Road. And we are getting toward the back end of the property, as
shown in the red arrows. This is the preliminary plat. As you will see, the final plat is in
substantial compliance with the preliminary plat and I had no further notes on this, other
than the gross density is about 2.9 dwelling units per acre and the net density is 3.65
dwelling units per acre and I don't have a letter from the applicant stating if they are in
agreement with the conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here tonight? I guess that means they are in agreement.
Canning: I think it would be safe to say they are in agreement. I can contact them and
have them -- we can find the action otherwise. It was, really, a very clean plat, so I'm
not concerned that they would have had anything.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you feel comfortable moving forward?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 05-024 with staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item No.8. Mrs. Clerk, will you, please,
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: VAR 05-002 Request for a Variance for reduced block
lengths for Blocks 1, 2 and 8 of the proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS
Investments, LLC - northwest corner of East McMillan Road and North
Locust Grove Road:
Item 10:
Public Hearing: VAC 05-001 Request to Vacate East Manderly Lane
and a 30-foot wide agricultural easement, both being one and the same as
shown on the plat of Larkwood Subdivision, at the north boundary line of
Lot 13, Block 2 for Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC -
northwest corner of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road:
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 21 of 58
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 45.88
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS
Investments, LLC - northwest corner of East McMillan Road and North
Locust Grove Road:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 05-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115
building lots and 26 common lots on 44.39 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC corner of
East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road:- northwest
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 9. Mr. Nary, since these are variances and
vacations, should they be heard separate from the other public hearings on the
annexation and preliminary plat?
Nary: Madam Mayor, no, there is -- Members of the Council, you don't need to hear
them separately. You may need to move to approve them separately if you decide to
approve this project.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I will go ahead, Council, if there is no objection, and open Items
9, 10, and 11 on VAR 05-002, VAC 05-001, AZ 05-002, and PP 05-003. So, Items 9
through 12. I will start with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Tustin Subdivision as you see
in the purple. It's along McMillan and Locust Grove Roads. There is Larkwood
Subdivision to the west, which is another county non-farm development. And, again,
this was the -- I think a portion of the open space associated with the non-farm. There
is -- or there are 115 single family residential buildings proposed. There is one existing
structure. You can see it down in the corner. There are 115 single-family residences
proposed and 26 common lots on 45 acres. So, the gross dem¡ity is 2.6 dwelling units
per acre and that's -- that is consistent with the R-4 zoning district that they have
proposed. I would like to point out that this is not a planned development. You see so
few that are just straight subdivision plats, I feel the need to point them out to you. So,
this is just a straight annexation and zoning. And, then, there are -- or there is a
variance that I will describe in a moment and also a vacation. The minimum lots are
8,000 as required by the R-4 zoning district. Actually, the smallest I saw was 8,800
square feet and there are only some of them toward the anterior of the project. Most
vary between 10,000 and 13,000 square feet. And, then, there are a few larger ones on
the edges as you go around and one large one in particular. This one is close to an
acre in size. The ones on the perimeter toward Larkspur -- Larkwood. Sorry -- are --
wait a minute. Or is it Larkspur? Now I'm confused. Sorry. Larkwood. They are --
they tend to be the larger lots, particularly on the southern end. There is an existing
accessory structure on this one-acre lot. They have asked for that to remain. It would
need to be accessory to a building permit, so there are conditions of approval that
address that. The property is designated as low density residential on the
Comprehensive Plan and the gross density that is proposed at 2.6 dwelling units per
acre would be consistent with that. The low density goes from one to three dwelling
Meridian City Council
April 12, 2005
Page 22 of 58
units per acre. Okay. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the block length
and we have highlighted here the two blocks that require the block length variance. You
can see they are quite long. And, then, they are also requesting a vacation and the
vacation you can see is at the north end of the property, You can see the line stretching
across toward the top and I show it down here. It's just 30-foot -- it's labeled as a 30-
foot agricultural easement. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on
March 3rd, 2005. They have recommended approval, all ayes, to the City Council. The
applicant's representative Ken Christensen testified in favor of the application and the --
I presented the application. That was when I was demoted to associate planner and did
all the applications that night, so I was there for that, too. The key issues of discussion
were the impact of the proposal on the existing Larkwood Subdivision to the west. I
apologize to all the residents to the west. And the sufficiency of the subdivision
common open space as provided -- and I will point that out to you. We don't have it
colored. There is -- the subdivision does meet the minimum five percent open space
that's required for a straight subdivision. The open space is on the entry road and, then,
there is a connection from this street. So, as you come in there is an open space
corridor in this area and, then, again down -- coming through here, so as you come in,
again, there is open space along the -- kind of collector road coming in and, then, it term
-- is the terminal view of this street as well. So, there is also open space along the
canal, between the two sets building lots on either side. So, there is a limit of open
space, They used it well and designed it fairly well, but it is a limited amount of open
space and that was the subject of discussion. And, then, vehicular connectivity to the
property to the north was also discussed. This stub street, in particular, was an issue of
concern. It stubs into a five acre property that is not part of this subdivision and, then,
there are, I believe, two five acre properties that - before you get to the -- Mr. Grant's
piece of property to the north. I can show you -- here we go. Here is -- the stub goes
into this property here and, then, there is one more five-acre piece. And this is Mr.
Grant's piece. That was the subject of a former application. This is -- Saguaro Canyon
comes up along here on the -- on the east side of the subdivision, West side of the
subdivision. Excuse me. To our knowledge there are no -- or the -- there were no
changes to the staff's initial recommendation done by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. And to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before City
Council. With that I will answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Anna, you mentioned there was a question about the stub to the north.
What was the question?
Canning: The concern with the -- the property owners in the subdivision is that with this
stub street there is nothing to prevent this property owner from connecting a public
street into their private street and so that was a concern to them, having that connection
into that property. As staff, we feel it's important to have that, even if it just continues
on, before they submitted, we asked them to show how they could eventually connect
up to here, so that we could get some future connectivity. Because these properties are
fairly large, you would be able to put a road through and double front it with houses
connecting up to Mr. Grant and we had had -- I don't know if you remember when
Leeshire came in, we did have Mr. Grant move his stub street to match up with the
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 23 of 58
alignment that we had requested these folks show us that connection through. So, it is
possible to do that -- these are large enough and the homes are fairly close to the
street, that you could parcel off some ground for the existing homes and still have lots
going up there and providing that connectivity.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Christensen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Kenny Christensen, 1951 South
Saturn Way, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you,
Christensen: Sure. You know, I don't have any -- anything further to add, unless you
have further questions for me to -- I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I -- just for the record, the current use or the previous use of
the area that's subject to the vacation, the agricultural easement, was that for irrigation
or --
Christensen: Currently this field is farmed with corn and it was a church farm years and
years ago. That road, actually, extended through some of those existing Larkwood lots
and has -- when Larkwood originally developed, they vacated it up to those parcels and
it's currently been used by the farmer that we lease to, just simply a dirt road to run his
tractor through. So, it has no future service if we are to develop it.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? I guess I would. On your open space --
Christensen: Yes.
De Weerd: What is the purpose of that open space? Generally, I guess the goal for our
landscape ordinance in requiring the open space was to give neighborhoods --
subdivisions places to gather and socialize and meet their neighbors and have places
their kids could play or if you don't have kids, a place where you could go and meet your
neighbors. What is the vision for the open space in your subdivision?
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 24 of 58
Christensen: We are a standard subdivision, so we do meet the requirements, but, you
know, I designed -- your walking path comes through where that canal will be covered.
I don't have a pointer or anything, but --
De Weerd: There is a pointer on the podium.
Christensen: Oh. This is will be your Meridian walking path that's to loop around the
city. So, you will have a ten-foot pathway there. And, then, these are also walking
paths. I'm just looking to try diversity. I live in Vienna Woods and I know some love the
park, others do not like it, because the maintenance and the difficulties of keeping a
large park like that sufficiently maintained. What I'm trying to add here is, you know,
parks in people's backyards with the larger lots and helping -- you know, you can
actually playa football game in the back of the yards in some of these one hundred foot
wide lots. So, it's just different. I mean it's just adding diversity to the city. But it is
designed to be more of a walking flow pattern than -- but you can gather here for -- you
know, you can put a playground -- this will be large enough for a playground or some,
you know, picnic tables or gathering places right here.
De Weerd: Can you tell me where that pathway goes?
Christensen: This one right here?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Christensen: It goes all the way through the property to Larkwood and, then, it --
actually, there is a pathway back here, looping it back through the subdivision.
De Weerd: Because Larkwood does not have a path through there.
Christensen: Currently they do not. The property owner here did come and testify
regarding -- and had questions regarding that pathway.
De Weerd: Okay.
Christensen: And this is where the current sewer trunk line, I believe, is coming
through. also, to alleviate this Vienna Woods lift station.
De Weerd: Is there a way to take that path and kind of tie it to stub to the north, so it
has a possibility some day to go somewhere?
Christensen: We talked about that. This property owner was okay with the pathway.
They were just worried about who would maintain it and didn't want it to get trashy.
You could refer to the minutes of the Planning and Zoning meeting. But this property
owner, I think, is -- I don't know what's further to the west, though, if there has been any
provisions or if it would have to weave up through this area.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 12,2005
Page 25 of 58
De Weerd: Yeah. I guess on Saguaro did we extend that pathway, since we knew
there was a county sub in between, wasn't that kind of vacated, those plans?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the original Camp Plan -- maybe
Brad can go throw that up on the podium for me, if you wouldn't mind -- on the -- over
there.
Christensen: Madam Mayor, you -- I mean you could come through here and up
through on a normal sidewalk, but it won't be that ten foot wide.
Canning: The Camp Plan -- this is one of those instances where it wasn't following a
natural feature and -- Brad's going to do his Vanna White impression over there for a
moment. And you can see it goes -- it actually comes up north to this property at the
back end of the church through Lee Grant's property, up through what would now be
Arcadia Subdivision to the south end of the neighborhood center and, then, it drops
back south again to head over toward Paramount. When Saguaro was the first
development to go in the square mile -- and Saguaro, basically, brought it in about a
half mile to their -- one of their second large parks, if you remember that and, then,
there was provisions made for it to go -- kind of go on street to connect to that
neighborhood center and when Leeshire came in, we just, basically, had got in to
extend the pathway north-south. Saguaro also went east-west, because they brought
their sewer line through a very wide easement. I think it's a main and Brad can verify
that. And they did also put a walking path on top of that. So, they -- Saguaro has both
a north-south and an east-west -- the east-west does end at Larkwood Subdivision. Did
I -- I hope that answers your question, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Not really. Where will that pathway connect to?
Canning: Well, Madam Mayor, we have a lot of instances where we know that in the
future at some point we may need to acquire an easement or there may be a point in
time -- these lots are fairly long and narrow for four lots. Maybe an opportunity where
they may want to just subdivide once, so that they have one more building permit on
that and that may be an opportunity for the city to acquire an easement at that time. So,
there are possibilities for future redevelopment within Larkwood Subdivision or the
possibility of naming an easement to connect those at some point in the future also.
Christensen: Director Canning, a sewer easement exists currently already; is that
correct?
Canning: I don't know the exact location, but I know that -- I believe it's there, yes.
Christensen: Right there. Because my understanding the sewer line is going to come
right through here. But I do not believe it's an easement for a walkway, but just sewer at
this time. But they -- when granting a sewer -- Director Watson can further elaborate,
but you do have to require a certain distance of -- on both sides of that sewer line of no
build and no -- or certain landscaping requirements.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 26 of 58
De Weerd: I guess is it an option to direct at least the walkers of that pathway up the
street and possibly to the north for future development? I don't know if the people in
Larkwood would -- would want a pathway through their subdivision, you know, so we
don't want to at least end that possibility.
Canning: Madam Mayor, there is a micro-path that picks up right here and connects
back into the street system,
De Weerd: I mean it may seem odd, but I have seen subdivisions with pathways that
go nowhere and don't have any possibility to go anywhere and so I would not like to see
that trend continue. Thank you. If there is no further questions--
Canning: Madam Mayor, could I ask the applicant for a clarification? I believe he
stated that this center one would also have a walking path and I don't see one on the
landscape plan, so I just wanted some clarification on that.
Christensen: Yes. We intend to do that, but it will not be a ten-foot wide. Most likely a
five-foot wide.
Canning: Okay.
Christensen: And the same here.
landscaping?
Is that desirable or would you rather more
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, should I -- may I answer that
question?
De Weerd: Yes,
Canning: I think that what we have heard from the development community is that if
you have those long linear open space corridors without a pathway, that they don't get
used. So, I think it would be preferable to have a five foot sidewalk within that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there
anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Please state
your name and address.
Lee: My name is Grant Lee, not Lee Grant.
Canning: Oh, I'm sorry.
Lee: I'm not Mr. Grant. It's Mr. Lee, if you want to call me mister. Make me feel old.
And the subdivision is Leeshire. I just had a couple of comments. Number one is on
the stub streets. It seems that the highway department is intent on -- okay, how do you
make these things work? I need a second grader here to show me. Okay. The stub
Meridian City Council
April 12.2005
Page 27 of 58
street that they are requiring Tustin to put into this six-acre parcel kind of matches the
one that they are requiring that we put in. Larkwood doesn't seem to want them and it
seems like the highway department is the main impetus behind them. But please keep
in mind that if you force us to put in these stub streets, please, don't play favoritism to
Larkwood and say you're not going to get the brunt of this, we are going to shove all this
traffic into Leeshire Subdivision or you're going to shovel all the traffic from Leeshire into
Tustin Subdivision. Larkwood is not a private street, as was mentioned, it's very much a
public street. The agricultural easement along this side originally was used to give
access to these two six acre parcels, which are not a part of the Larkwood Subdivision.
Now that they have access to Larkwood, that may be one of the reasons they are
requesting vacation, but more than just a farmer's road for a tractor, that was the access
originally when all that was developed was these two six acre parcels. The two-acre
park in Leeshire, which buffered our house from the Larkwood Subdivision, and had 73
people sign our petition in favor for it, we thought was a nice park. Now, if you're going
to allow a little skinny strip in here and call that a park, call that your open space, be
very careful, if that's the precedent you want to set, because if we come back with the
same proposal, please, don't say, well, we want all your ground in one contiguous piece
and one big park. Let's see. Those are my comments. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Can I apologize to Mr. Lee?
De Weerd: He was just looking for an opportunity, Anna, Would the representative like
to respond?
Christensen: The only response --
De Weerd: Just state your name again for the record.
Christensen: Oh. Sorry. Ken Christensen. 1951 South Saturn Way, Suite 100, Boise,
Idaho. The stub road, that's a requirement of ACHD, therefore, I put it there. I didn't
have much say in that. I do know that Mr. Palmer, that adjacent owner, does desire it to
be there. And Larkwood is very much against any connectivity to their cul-de-sac. They
have stated that over and over, that they do want to make that -- undo their cul-de-sac, I
should say. They want to keep that a cul-de-sac. And it is a public cul-de-sac. And,
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 28 of 58
then, regarding the park, again, I just -- I'm trying to create large lots here, you know,
over 50 of my lots are 11,000 or greater and I'm just trying to add -- you know, we have
done a lot of PUDs with big parks, small lots, which make those subdivisions have
economic sense. You know, those people need some place to move up to and that's
kind of what my intent is, I'm trying to provide that. Any other questions?
De Weerd: Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there is no further testimony, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearings on nine, ten, 11, and 12.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 9 through 12. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a clarification from legal staff. Are these in the order they need to go in,
Mr. Nary? The variance first and, then, vacation?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you're going to take these, you
probably should do Item 11 first, which is the annexation, and then -- then you can grant
the variance -- if you're going to grant the variance and the vacation, you can do thai
prior to the plat. I don't think that's --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
Aprii 12.2005
Page 29 of 58
Wardle: With that I would move that we approve Item No. 11, AZ 05-002, annexation
and zoning for Tustin Subdivision and to include all staff and applicant comments.
Bird: And include the findings.
Wardle: And to include the findings.
Bird: Second,
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 11. Is there any discussion? Okay.
Ms. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would move that we approve Item No.9, VAR 05-002, variance for reduced
block lengths for Tustin Subdivision and to include all staff and applicant comments and
to approve the --
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item No.9.
discussion, Ms. Clerk.
If there is no further
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Canning: Madam Mayor, was that an approval of the findings also? There are no
findings?
Nary: I think there is just an order.
Wardle: And clarification, Mr. Attorney, on Item 10. Are there findings for that particular
application?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Wardle, on the vacation
we will provide a -- we will follow up with a resolution next week, so that that can be
recorded.
Wardle: Okay. Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 30 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 10, VAC 05-001, vacation in Tustin Subdivision.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 10. Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Wardle: Mr. Attorney, one point of clarification. The applicant stated that they will be
placing a five foot pathway in the open space. Do the findings need to reflect that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think we prefer they did reflect that.
You could direct the staff to simply include that in the findings, rather than setting it over
for that, unless Mrs. Canning thinks she needs more than that.
Canning: That would be fine.
Wardle: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve Item No.1 0, PP 05-003, to include all staff and
applicant comments and to also include in the findings the specific comment to the
pathway within the open space of the subdivision.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 12 with the clarification on the
pathway. Mrs. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-003 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for Kingsbridae Subdivision by Vision First,
LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 05-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 130
single-family reaidential building lots and 3 common lots on 76.72 acres in
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 31 of 58
a proposed R-3 zone for Kinasbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC -
4070 South Eagle Road:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots in a
proposed R-3 zone with reductions to the minimum requirements for street
frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for
Kinasbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I will go ahead and open Items 13, 14, and 15 on AZ 05-
003, PP 05-004, and CUP 05-004. I will open these public hearings with staff
comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, this is Kingsbury Subdivision --
Kingsbridge. And it is located south of Victory on Eagle Road, about mid -- midway
between Victory and Amity. And you may remember this as being here before you in
previous version, so I'm going to summarize those very briefly. The first application was
submitted in fall of 2004 and that was for annexation, preliminary plat, and conditional
use approval for a planned development. The development proposed lot sizes around
the 8,000 square foot minimum and it was for an R-4 zone and the gross density was
3.1 dwelling units per acre. Then, on September 16th, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to recommend denial of the annexation and the CUP to the Council
and they voted to deny the preliminary plat. It was, then -- there had been a request for
reconsideration of the revised plat. That was not acted on by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and basically everything came up to Council on appeal. Then findings for
denial were approved -- or the City Council heard the item December 14th and the
findings were adopted on January 4th, 2005, that was for denial. The reasons that the
Council stated for the denial were the amount of traffic that would use the existing
street, that being Dartmoor Street in Dartmoor Subdivision. And there is Dartmoor
Street, you may recall. That's Dartmoor Subdivision and its lots. The proposed density
was too high and it was not in the best interest of the city at that time. In response to
City Council's denial of the previous application, the applicant has significantly modified
the -- their request. They have a lot of transitional lot sizes at the project perimeter and
you can see these as we go through. The lot sizes here against Dartmoor and, then, up
to the north are significantly larger and, then, as you go to the east you now have three
very large lots and, then, those are the primary transitional lots. The gross density is
now 1.69 dwelling units per acre. There was a net loss of 107 build-able lots from the
original submittal. I think it would actually be 108 now, because they have lost one
more lot. The requested R-3 zone is consistent with the existing character of the area,
which is rural, and the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. The estimated additional
traffic on the Dartmoor Street is less than 300 vehicle trips per day, based on the new
layout. The staff report was originally written on a plan that showed 130 building lots.
They are now down to 124 building lots. The area -- this is -- this is the plan that the
Planning and Zoning Commission saw. I want to point out just some changes here. If
you look on this edge here, you will see five lots and now they have gone to -- oops --
three since the Planning and Zoning Commission. The only other change is they have
taken one of the -- the last two lots here, they have added one of them back in at the
Meridian City Council
April 12, 2005
Page 32 of 58
end of this cul-de-sac street. So, again, this is - I do have the Planning and Zoning
Commission preliminary plat if you'd like to look at it. But from now on I think I'm going
to stick with the proposal that's before the Council. But those are the primary changes.
There is one other big change and that's -- this was a stub street -- or I mean this was a
connecting street when it went through the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
applicant has worked with the neighbors and one of the things they wanted to see was
that this be a cul-de-sac street. So, that's the other primary change. Okay. As I
mentioned before, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of low
density residential on the entire project. You may recall that the north half is designated
as low density residential, while the south half or south portion is, actually, designated
as medium density residential and you will note that the lots are -- in general, are larger
in this area, with the one exception being the existing home site and the lots on the --
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the lots on the northern portion are larger.
They have submitted a planned development request for the R-3 zone. The city
requires a 90 foot minimum for non-cul-de-sac lots in the R-3 zone. They are asking for
60 feet minimum. And, then, for cul-de-sacs, our ordinance requires 40 feet and they
are asking for 30 feet on the cul-de-sacs or curved lots. The block length requirement --
again, it is an issue here. We have the 1,OOO-foot maximum. They do have some that
are up to 1,325 feet. So, that is part of their planned development request is
modifications to frontage and to block length. They did not request a modification to the
12,000 square foot minimum for the R-3 district. They have proposed a number of
amenities, including ten percent open space, a community park, in this location. It
shows up a little better on the landscape plan. There we go. Community park, with a
swimming pool, barbecue area, with picnic tables and a tot lot. There is another park
that contains a water feature, benches, and walking path. You will see the walking path
kind of loop through it and, then, it connects back up with the street pathway. And they
have a landscape boulevard corridor between Kingsbridge Drive and it starts here,
landscape corridor comes all the way through, crosses, and, then, continues on through
the property. And there is a walking path along the south side of the Ten Mile feeder,
so down here. And a walking path along the north boundary and, then, smaller open
space pockets, bridge and monument, and ornamental street trees. The Planning and
Zoning Commission did hear this item on March 3rd, 2005. Mr. Ken Elliott spoke in
favor of this application, as did Bob Kelse. In opposition were Brady Turner from the
Dartmoor homeowners association. Rita Becker, Bob Becker, Frank Schumaker, David
Levine, Bradford Deadman, Kava Rich, Lori Allen, Lou Moncar,. David Seegmiller, and
Chantelle Krazinski. Commenting was Julie Ann Hill. The key issues of discussion by
the Commission focused on the proposed density of the development, the compatibility
of the development with surrounding properties, the transitional lot size and estate lot
size, and, then, limiting homes on the perimeter of the development to single story and
the traffic. The key Commission changes to the staff's initial recommendation were that
the applicant shall reduce the number of billable lots from 130. to 125 and they have
actually reduced it one more, so they have gone to 124 now and they were to do that by
removing an additional five lots from the southerly boundary of the development. The
applicant shall limit 22 of the 44 perimeter lots to single story dwellings. The applicant
shall -- and a lot of these were commitments made by the developer, particularly the off-
site commitments were not required by staff, they were listed as commitments of the
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 33 of 58
developer. And so the applicant shall construct concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter
along the north side of the existing Dartmoor Drive and, then, they would do a painted
crosswalk from Dartmoor Drive from Gideon Place and they would do a painted stripe
delineating a pedestrian walkway along the south side of the existing Dartmoor Drive.
So, again, those were all site improvements proposed by the developer and they
consented to those being placed in the development agreement. They also indicated
that the applicant shall install vinyl privacy fencing extending along the north boundary
line and, then, either a five foot wrought iron or six foot vinyl privacy fencing on all other
perimeter boundaries. The applicant shall impose a 25-foot rear yard setback on all
perimeter lots and, then, along Zaldia Lane there was discussion about the landscape
st~ip there and evergreen trees being planted, as well as constructing a berm. And,
then, finally, the applicant was to pipe the tail ditch from the Dartmoor irrigation pond.
Moving onto outstanding issues before Council. I'm going to start with the ones that
were in the summary sheet and, then, I'm going to move to the letter that Vision First
has provided regarding the agreements they have come up with with the neighbors and
how -- if the Council is so inclined, how we would integrate those into findings for this
project. The first outstanding issue noted by Mr. Hood is that -- that primarily that,
really, the way the findings are written were what the P&Z had seen and had
recommended up to you, but since that time there have been significant changes
agreed to by the developer and the surrounding property owners. So, we would ask
that if you are inclined to approve this subdivision tonight, that you give staff three
weeks to come back to you with findings. That gives us time to get a complete copy of
the minutes and to run the findings by Mr. Nary. The second one is there was -- there
were a lot of conditions that referenced the southern property boundary line here along
Zaldia and Zura Lane. Or Zaldia Lane, Excuse me. And they seem to conflict. So,
staff is just asking that the applicant verify that this is, indeed, the proposed cross
section, the landscape detail that's intended. This is Zaldia Lane. This is -- the buffer
width is denoted here and, then, we have got the fence location, as well as the conifer
trees. So, this was provided as a detail that we think it would be easier to reference this
and there is some specific changes we would make to the conditions of approval. They
just -- the existing conditions talk about a five foot buffer, in addition to a 20 foot buffer,
so we are unclear as to what the applicant was proposing or had agreed to -- with the
neighbors regarding that. Finally, there is -- okay. Finally, from the summary note --
summary sheet I want you to note that the revised plat date is March 2nd, 2005. Okay.
That's it for the summary sheet. Now, moving on to the Vision First letter, dated April
6th, 2005. I'm going to run through as quickly as I can some of the items that are in that
letter. I assume you have copies. Item number one is the definition of the single story
homes. Those numbers do reflect the new -- or do reference the new plat. So, we
could incorporate those into the condition of approval, although we would recommend
that they not be notes on the plat. Regarding the fencing, we can add that as a
condition of approval through the development agreement and the preliminary plat,
which was number two. Number three, it states that Vision First shall impose a 25 foot
rear yard setback. That is the prerogative of the developer to do that on the final plat if
he chooses. We could look for that. That would not be a -- I would recommend that
that not be our condition, but that they be required to do that through the CC&Rs or
through the development agreement, rather than us requiring that on the plat. And
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 34 of 58
that's just John Priester with Ada County, discussion that we have had before and that's
all. Regarding Item number four, this is the landscape strip that I had talked about. I
have talked about that enough. Item number five references the same thing. Item
number six regarding the South Spruce Way, shall be redesigned to terminate in a cul-
de-sac and I mentioned that briefly before and that this is the new cul-de-sac lot. I did
want to offer a suggestion to the developer and the Council that there is -- there is not
much area here and I'm a bit concerned that people might decide to just go four
wheeling over ten feet of grass and pop into the -- I don't think they would do it on a
regular basis, but I think that the homeowners would find that a rambunctious teenager
every once in awhile was doing that. What I would recommend is that they could pull
this subdivision -- this cul-de-sac back to approximately here and, then, leave a
pedestrian easement, a micro-path that connected to this common open space and on
this second cul-de-sac I would recommend -- there is only three lots that take access
from it. I would recommend that they actually use, instead -- use a common drive, so
that the street would just kind of come like this and make a 90-degree turn and go up.
So, I think that would be -- I think the way it's designed there is more asphalt there than
we probably need and we could open that up for open space, rather than the roadway
there. Regarding item number seven, it was -- we can add that. It's about additional
landscaping along South Maryvale Way and we could modify preliminary plat condition
number seven to accommodate that. I do believe they state something about that --
that it would be included in the development agreement, but it would only really need to
be included in the preliminary plat. The landscape, specifically, for that. Regarding item
number eight, which talks about a weed eradication and maintenance program, we
could add that to the development agreement. We are not sure what we would do if
they didn't meet it. It may be more appropriate in just the CC&Rs. On number nine it
talks about entitling certain properties to re-subdivide, so that would not be appropriate
for the city to include anything about those -- about those properties at this time. That
would be a separate application before Council -- or Planning Commission and Council
at a later date. Okay. And the other ones, I believe, have already been incorporated
into our conditions, but they are asking that it be modified. So, these would be
modifications to the existing commitments that I just spoke about before. The ones
regarding Dartmoor Drive, it looks like they are getting sidewalks along. both sides of
Dartmoor Drive. And, then, there is clarifications about some of the -- some very -- it
says that a vinyl fence would be constructed at the homeowners discretion. Just from a
staff point of view, we need to know that we are looking for wrought iron, vinyl fence,
and if we see wrought iron, we are not -- we don't want to be put in the position of going
to have to ask the homeowner if it's the fence they wanted there. So, we are going to
assume if there is a fence up, that -- that that meets that condition of approval. So, we
would just ask to be allowed to word the condition of approval that way. We would
basically take out at the homeowner's discretion. That would have to be done before
the fence was built. And, then, on three, we could change the existing condition
regarding the head gate on the new inlet to control water flow into the pond and on item
number four we could add that to the development agreement, that the preliminary plat
be included. I believe that that is a standard item that is placed in this development
agreement is to have a copy of the preliminary plat, but we would do that. With that, I
will answer any questions you may have.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 35 of 58
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I don't think so, Mayor.
Canning: And, of course, I forgot something. These are the -- the applicant has
proposed four elevations for homes in the area, These are three of the homes and,
then, this is the kind of look that they want to achieve in the open space area.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I do have a question.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, I didn't hear you clearly when you was saying about you didn't want the lots
that were going to have one story on -- noted on the plat -- on the final plat. Is that right
or did you say they would be noted on the final plat?
Canning: We have been trying to trim down final plats to surveying items, rather than
trying to put planning items on there. However, if it's a commitment by the developer,
which it is in this case, as would be the 25-foot setback, then, that's certainly a
mechanism for him to use to meet his -- meet his commitment with the neighbors.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I'm one person that believes the more we get on the final plat, the
better we are. We have been hung out to dry two or three times, because of stuff not
being on the final plat. Mr. Watson knows this, that -- and we have been out -- so, I
believe anything when you got exceptions and stipulations that they should be on a final
plat, so that everybody can see them and there is no excuse for going against the will of
the final plat. If they are not on there, if they are a note or something somewhere, they
might -- the builder - the owner might never see it and when the thing is built, then, we
wind up buying something, so I -- I'm one that thinks that the final plat -- all those
exceptions and stuff should be marked right on the final plat, so they are not missed.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Elliott: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott,
I'm the representative for the applicant Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South
Rivershore Lane, Suite 120 in Eagle. Just one typo that I noted on the agenda packet.
In the staff summary it discusses three common area lots. There are, actually, 35
common area lots in the project, rather than three. So, I wanted to point that out. It's
good to be back here this evening and I'm particularly gratified, because we have good
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 36 of 58
news to report to the City Council and we would -- we would hope that you would be
pleased with the efforts that the developer and the neighbors have made to resolve
some pretty thorny issues that had us far apart at previous hearings before the city. I
want to say that we have learned a lot through this process, beginning last September
with the Planning and Zoning Commission, particularly through meetings with the
neighbors and the comments that we received from the Mayor and the City Council at
our appeal hearing in December. As a result that input and follow-up meetings with the
neighbors, the project has dramatically changed as the staff report notes from the
preliminary plat presented to the Council on appeal in December and as a result of
these changes I'm happy to report that we have reached an agreement with adjoining
property owners, representatives of basically all the adjoining subdivisions. We have a
settlement agreement with the Dartmoor homeowners association and with the
designated representatives of the Golden Eagle Estates, which is the property to the
north, the Bridlewood Subdivision, which is the property to the east, and the Coons
Hollow and Zaldia and Zura Subdivisions to the south. We have just literally right before
the hearing signed the final version of the settlement agreement and presented it to the
clerk and I believe that you may have copies of that in front of you now. You will see
the agreement is signed. It's, essentially, the same agreement that was submitted to
you last week as part of the agenda packet, with the exception of the items that are
referenced in my letter dated today that's in this little supplemental packet that I have
distributed. In response to concems raised by the neighbors, we added the clarifying
language to paragraph eight of the settlement agreement and, then, paragraph four of
the proposed provisions of the development agreement to clarify that the perimeter lots
that you see on the plat will remain, essentially, as is, except for minor lot size
adjustments as may be needed as we build out the project. We will not be doing
anything to increase the density from what is now shown or increase trips -- as a result
of the project vehicle trips and we are prepared to note these provisions on the plat and
in a set of record covenants and in a development agreement with the city. So, we are
really looking at the settlement agreement that you have before you tonight signed for
the first time for a lot of additional conditions of approval. I want you to know the
applicant has agreed to all of those conditions of approval and we would ask the City
Council to approve the settlement agreement terms and conditions and to the extent
that staff and the city attorney recommend, we would like to have those incorporated
both as conditions of approval for the orders adopted by the City Council in a
development agreement between the developer and the Council -- or and the city. I
have also given the City Council two charts in this follow-up packet tonight that we also
presented the first chart, which is the second to the last page of your packet, to
Planning and Zoning just to show how dramatically the project has changed since the
original submittal last September. We have, basically, cut it in half from 237 lots down
to 125 at P&Z, now we are down to 124. We have more than doubled the average lot
size from 8,400 to 17,200 square feet. We have increased the minimum lot size from
7,000 up to 12,000, which puts all the lots in compliance with the R-3, the medium
density rural residential zone in the city code. The range of lot sizes has increased from
a low of 7,000 up to that low of 12,000 and at the top end they have gone up from 19
plus to 33,000 plus before the Planning and Zoning Commission. If -- Craig, if we could
switch to the next chart. We have a few additional changes that reflect the terms of the
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 37 of 58
settlement agreement entered into last week with the neighbors. As Director Canning
mentioned, we are down to 124 lots now. That gives us a slightly higher average lot
size, a slightly lower gross density per acre, we are down to 1.62 dwelling units per acre
now, which is well within the lowest zone called for in the city code, which is R-2. Our
high end lots at the very top along the northeast boundary are 36,414 square feet, over
three-quarters of an acre. Our trips are -- we just estimated with the loss of one more
lot ten fewer trips, we are saying less than 300 will go through Dartmoor and we have
particularly paid attention to the -- both the neighbors and the City Council's comments
on dealing with the transition from the perimeter rural residential lots. If you could go
back to the previous chart, Craig. You see we have cut the lots along the north
boundary from 22 down to ten. Lots on the eastern boundary from 16, now that's down
to nine -- or, rather, six. I'm sorry. Lots on the south boundary are just up one, because
we added the one lot on the southeast cul-de-sac. So, that's nine. And the ones along
Zaldia Lane have been cut in half from 12 to six. So, it's a dramatically different project
than the one both Planning and Zoning and the City Council rejected last year. And we
are very happy to report that we feel we have reached an agreement with the
neighboring property owners and we can all get behind. Several of the Councilors at
the December hearing mentioned that you view our property more as an island of
potential urban use surrounded by rural development, in contrast to the more typical
situation of small pockets of rural development that get swallowed up by the city as it
grows out and we have certainly come to appreciate that our site is uniquely situated,
because of the large number of cluster rural residential lots on all the boundaries and as
a result of the Council's direction, that's the development that you see before you
tonight. I just would like to address just a couple of specific design items. We have --
we have provided for the landscape buffer that was shown in the staff report. We are
committed to that cross-section. I believe the confusion that staff saw in our discussion
was that we are suggesting that the utility easement for the clay pipe that we are going
to install along the north edge of Zaldia Lane be reduced to 15 feet with the pipe
centered -- or off-centered there where the circle is shown, five feet north of the right of
way boundary, so that we can maintain the five feet on the north side of the 20 foot
buffer to put the conifer trees in without having trees planted within the actual Nampa-
Meridian district easement. We understand that -- from our discussions with the
irrigation districts that no one really wants to do much with this water, other than to
make sure it collects from three existing open ditches on properties to the south, they
just want to make sure that it gets back into their system and we are going to do that
through the use of an underground pipe that will connect northerly, then, into the main
line in the middle of our property. So, we are quite confident that they will agree with
this concept of a 15 foot easement with the trees installed on the north five feet. That
was at the request of the neighbors to the south, so that we would have a better
landscape buffer outside of our vinyl fence, so that we'd have additional screening for
those folks to the south, rather than having trees installed on the inside of the
backyards. We are also putting them a lot closer together. They will be 20 feet on
center, rather one three per lot as we had proposed originally. We are maintaining a
very very shallow grade at a four-to-one slope up to the top of the berm. We will get up
to five feet there and, then, have the six foot vinyl fence on top of the berm and a
somewhat steeper three-to-one slope on the inside of the backyards for the -- the six
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 38 of 58
lots that are on our project. Secondly, we are in agreement for the single story lots
around the perimeter of our project. The blue houses illustrate the existing houses in
the close proximity and, then, we have the 22 lots noted there with the red squares, with
one exception and that is the very southerly line of our project along Zaldia Lane you
see the four blocks, we have agreed to move that -- that row of four one lot to the east
in response to the Schumakers and the DeAngeles concerns for maintaining a view
corridor to the northeast up to Bogus Basin. So, rather than lots four through seven as
shown on this diagram, the lots five through eight will be restricted to single story
homes. Just a final comment that we have made before and that is we think this --
despite the surrounding constraints with the rural development and the need to respect
that and make a good transition, we do feel that this is the right project in the right place
at the right time. The map you see there was current as of last December. At that time
705 new lots had been approved south of Overland in the pink areas by the city. The
brown area is the boundary of Silverstone and EI Dorado, the two business parks that
front on Eagle Road and Overland Road. And we really think that that location is in the
process of becoming a major employment center, a dynamic job center, probably will
become the greatest one in the whole Treasure Valley and we think that will create
need for more housing south of the freeway, rather than having all the new housing
north of the freeway and that's why we want to be where we are. With that said, I would
just request the Council's consideration of the applications. Maybe I can point out just
one more quick item. We have got that color board diagram just for clarity on the lot
sizes. The very darkest gray are over 21,000 square feet. So, we, essentially, have
half-acre lots on the perimeters of the Palfreyman tract, the north. The darker greenish
gray that you see at the southeast corner and, then, on several lots on the land south of
the canal, are between 18,000 and 21,000. The yet lighter gray that is most of the lots
adjoining land to the south are all over 15,000 square feet, they are between 15 and 18
and only in the interior of the project do we get down to the 12,000 square footers,
which are the minimum permitted by the R-3 zone. So, we feel we have done an
effective job of creating that transition, particularly, as the staff pointed out, you will note
that the rectangular block on our far northeast corner has been converted from five lots
down to three lots. So, we thank you for your consideration and I'm prepared to answer
any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
DeWeerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Elliott, you provided us I think the most recent copy of what's called a
Settlement Agreement dated the 12th and you indicated it had been signed by all of the
homeowners' representatives. The copy I have is not executed by the Golden Eagle
Estates folks.
Elliott: Right. Golden Eagle -- Lori Allen signed the previous version and she's out of
town tonight, so we will follow up, get that signature, and submit it.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 39 of 58
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, could you put up the landscape plan?
Canning: Yes, but it will take a moment. I need a keyboard, too.
Wardle: Mr. Elliott, my question is specifically related to a staff comment and that is
about the cul-de-sacs and I'm wondering your thoughts on the changes that staff has
made and, then, I notice in item number eight in your agreement that you have agreed
not to make any changes to the final plat dated April 5th and so, not being an attorney, I
wouldn't want to make a determination as to whether that constituted a change or not,
so if you could comment on that.
Elliott: The language in the settlement agreement is directed to the number of lots and,
then, also the size and configuration of all the perimeter lots, which would not be
affected by staff's recommendation. I did think of just one more point in response to that
staff report. In paragraph nine Director Canning mentioned that it relates to really
subdividing the lots and so it wouldn't be appropriate to impose such a condition now.
The re-subdividing we are talking about are the changes that we have already made to
the easterly lots and that are reflected on the April 5th preliminary plat. So, the -- we
have added one lot at the southeast corner and taken away two at the northeast corner.
So, that's -- that's the only re-subdividing. And we would -- we would be certainly
interested in exploring the conversion of part of those cul-de-sacs to a narrower
pavement width to create more open space, as long as we still have good access to all
those lots. I think it's a great idea. It will allow us to make the park a little bigger,
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Well, since I didn't hear anyone else say it, I have the sign-up sheet in front
of me and I'm amazed at how many moved from the middle column to the first column in
support of and I would commend the neighbors and the developers to working together
and finding a compromise. This just really slows you the value of working with the
neighbors and creating something that is going to be an asset to that area. So, I would
like to commend all of you for working together and finding something that you could all
agree on. It's very impressive.
Elliott: We are very pleased as well.
De Weerd: And, you know, we sawall the people and until I saw the sign-up sheet I
wasn't quite sure what we were going to experience tonight, so--
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 12. 2005
Page 40 of 58
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd like to commend the developers. I mean they have went back and everything
we asked them to do, they went back and they got together with all the neighbors and
they come back with a plan with the density that we had basically told them we wanted
and I commend you for doing that.
Elliott: Thank you very much.
Bird: And I appreciate that and I think the whole Council and the Mayor just stated how
she felt, that -- and this is something that really helps when you're going into
development in tough areas and I thank you very much for doing that.
Elliott: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I did need to point out a couple things. Just one. Mr. Inselman just notified
me -- he was looking at that condition about the changes to Dartmoor Drive. That is a
public street, so he would ask that if we are considering those, we need to keep in mind
that those would be subject to approval by ACHD, those roadway changes for Dartmoor
Drive.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. We do have a list here. If you. would desire to provide
testimony when I call your name, certainly you're welcome to come up and speak your
mind. I will indicate whether you're for or against and so when I read your name if you
would like to provide testimony, please, come forward. We have Bob Becker for. Okay.
Tim Wallace for. Sharon and Jeff McKee for. I'm sorry, I can't read the other -- it begins
with a Band -- he mentioned for. And Mr. Johnson. Daniel. Daniel Johnson signed up
for. Brady Turner for. Okay. If you, will, please, state your name and address.
Turner: Yes. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is
Brady Turner, I reside at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I have been asked to
speak on behalf of all but one of the Dartmoor homeowners this evening and that one
homeowner will speak on their own behalf tonight. As I was preparing to speak this
evening I was reflecting back over the last year of all that the homeowners have been
through. I realize that there is a loss to some degree of the rural feeling of our
neighborhood. However, growth in the Treasure Valley seems to be inevitable and if we
thought otherwise, we are either very naive or we haven't been paying attention and
observant of all the development that's going on in the past several years. We have
enjoyed a rural lifestyle now for the past ten years and, like many people, we wanted to
retain that for as long as possible. But, you know, as the song goes, you can't always
Meridian City Council
April 12.2005
Page 41 of 58
get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.
With your help we have reduced the density of the development to be more compatible
with the surrounding properties. We have been working very hard behind the scenes to
reach a workable compromise with Vision First and we believe we have been
successful. If the Council agrees tonight to incorporate the terms of the -- that the
homeowners and Vision First have negotiated in our settlement agreement into the
applicant's conditions of approval, development agreement, and final plat, our most
important needs will have been met, including giving the homeowners transition
between our lower density and Kingsbridge's higher density, protecting our views of the
surrounding mountains and maintaining a more open feel by limiting some perimeter
lots to single story homes and I would echo Councilman Bird's comments about placing
those notes on the plat. Our intention there was to make that -- those restrictions as
clearly visible to potential buyers and developers as possible. Getting the homeowners
of the Dartmoor and Kingsbridge homeowners needed safety for pedestrians walking
along both sides of the existing Dartmoor Drive, protecting the quality and quantity of
our irrigation water for the Dartmoor homeowners. Significantly reducing traffic along
Dartmoor Drive with the addition of the cul-de-sac on South Ivy Bridge Way and we also
are willing to explore the recommendations from staff in modifying those cul-de-sacs.
And hoping to insure the valuation of our homes will not be adversely impacted by
increasing the minimum square footage of the homes from Kingsbridge. The original
plat called for minimum square footage of 1,800 square feet. That has now been
increased to 2,000 square feet for single story homes and I believe 2,400 square feet
for two story homes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's now up to you. If you
choose not to incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement, as both Vision First
and we have asked, then, we feel we must continue to oppose the development.
However, we truly hope that this will not be the case, that you will incorporate the terms
of the settlement agreement, then, 14 out of the 15 homeowners in Dartmoor will either
support or no longer oppose the Kingsbridge development. I thank you for your time
and consideration.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Thank you. Bev Bertell. Okay. For. She stated for. Troy Quick for. Ron
and Jean Marie Patton. For. Okay. Thank you. Christy Quick for. Renee Rule for.
Tammy Cook did not indicate. For. Okay. Rick Stott. Against. Would you like to
provide testimony?
Stott: I'd like to -- Rick Stott, 3604 Caleb Place. If we could get the plat -- either that
nice pretty graphic one that Mr. Elliott had up or the total plat, that would be great.
There you go.
Canning: This one? Will that one work for you, sir?
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 42 of 58
Stott: Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. You bet. I hate to be a fly in the ointment to this
lovefest, but there is a couple of issues that have been a concern on my mind and have
been largely ignored in this process and both of which I expressed my concerns in the
original meeting, some of which -- some of the concerns I expressed previously have
been addressed through single story homes, but just kind of a summary and a reminder,
my property is this right here and there is probably no other property owner that has
anymore of a problem with this subdivision as far as impeding potentially views of
beautiful mountains and taking away just openness of it, because of the elevation. This
right here where my back porch is is at least six feet lower than this point right here and
in the original -- in the original proposal -- and I have it right here, but in the original
proposal --
De Weerd: Do you want to give it to staff, so they can put that up on the screen?
Stott: As you can see on the original proposal, my property is right here. The original
proposal had an open area in that back corner, which allowed for some access or some
open vistas from my property from my backyard across there. More importantly -- and
maybe equally important, is the fact that currently there is an irrigation canal that
farmers had put in place that runs kind of through this area through here and those of
you that have been farming, like I have for -- since I was a kid, knows that a farmer is
going to put it on the very highest point of that irrigation canal and so the ridge of this
property -- entire property starts back over here, comes through the middle of the
property, he irrigates on both sides, and, then, comes down, because this point right
here is the very lowest part of the entire property and the original plat put that retention
pond in the right place. The concern that I have is that all of these properties -- there is
-- the irrigation canal comes here and the current property owner has allowed me to rent
this property through this area here for quite a number of years, because they can't farm
that without flooding my property. They can't irrigate it, they can't do anything with it.
And so all of these properties on the original -- now, if you would go back to the original
-- the current property. All of these properties right here, the natural flow is this way.
De Weerd: Mr. Stott, can you, please, summarize.
Stott: Oh. Yes. The point being is that the appropriate place for that irrigation or that
catch basin is here. It not only opens up the views, but it also is an appropriate place.
This is where it is right now, a higher place in the total property. And by switching,
which I proposed and the Dartmoor -- most recently in the last couple days, has
proposed, which was rejected by Mr. Elliott, to move this open area, which is their catch
basin, to here to the lowest place of the property, serves two purposes. The second
issue is that all around this perimeter, on 90 percent of the perimeter, except for right
here, there is a buffer zone and there is no buffer zone here at all. And it's a -- and so a
combination of those two things make it pretty onerous and so -- anyway, that's -- other
than that, I compliment all of the organizations and the progress they have made. It's
been terrific. They have done a great job at putting together and trying to accomplish,
but as the -- one of the board members of Dartmoor Subdivision told me last night, they
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 43 of 58
negotiated this deal not based upon individual needs, but for the multiple good. I
understand that. But I also understand that the government is for -- to be ruled by
majority, but also protect the rights of individuals. So, I'm coming before you this day to
ask for some consideration in this matter in that particular one instance. With that I
would support the subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Stott. Any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Michelle Stott. Okay. Rex Cook also for. Okay. If someone didn't sign up
on that sheet, rather than compare, is there anyone else who would like to provide
testimony? Okay.
Becker: My name is Lisa Becker, I live at 3421 South Zelatir on the eastern side of the
property. I personally wanted to thank Wayne Henkleberg for coming in at the last
minute to mediate this agreement. We really do appreciate the efforts that the
developers have made. They have been able to give us three transition lots along our
five-acre property, which made all the difference in the world in our ability to support this
development and we understand that there is no ability to re-subdivide those lots, so we
do appreciate that. The only comment I have is the fencing. I talked with our neighbor
Daniel Johnson and we believe that on the eastern side there we'd like the iron fencing
to preserve the rural character of the area, rather than vinyl. So, we will just let the
developer know that. And the only thing -- we have one more request and that's that we
would like a key to the pool.
De Weerd: I think I would, too. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to
provide testimony?
Schumaker: Yes. Frank Schumaker, 3497 Zaldia Lane.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Schumaker: I would like to ask the developer if he could, please, define a one level
house. Does this include living area over the garage or does this include just living area
on the main level only? Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. That's a good question. Is there any further testimony before I
ask the applicant to have the final remarks?
Canning: Madam Mayor, if the applicant is on his way up, I just wanted to comment --
because of the comments that Brady -- and, I'm sorry, I forgot your last name -- made
with regard to them only supporting this if the city adopted all the agreement -- or terms
of the settlement agreement, I did want to point out staff was proposing that we not
implement a couple portions. One was the weed eradication and, then, one regarding
the fencing, that we would look for wrought iron or vinyl fencing, but that we may not
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 44 of 58
know what the homeowner's discretion was in that matter. So, those were just -- I just
wanted to make sure that the applicant could address those and -- and I had one final
thing and I don't mean to confuse the issue, but I did want to point out that the unified
development code that's coming before you soon, presumably, is not proposing an R-3
district. The standards that this subdivision has been designed to are the R-2 standards
for the future ones. I would like a statement from the applicant that he understood that
and they have, but I would just like to get on the record that he's aware that we will be
proposing to change the zoning from R-3 to R-2 and if Council decides to approve this
plan, this would be far more R-3 lots than we have anywhere else in the city. So, I just -
- I just wanted to get it on the record was all. And I'm sorry to confuse things.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Yes, sir. If you will, please, come and state your name and
address,
Deadman: Bradford Deadman and my wife and I reside at 3644 Zaldia Lane. The main
thing that I popped up for after saying that I was already in agreement with what you
said early by complimenting the developer was working with the neighborhood, that still
holds true. That's the most important thing that I think has been said tonight. The only
thing that I think repeatedly came up among the Zaldia folks with regard to our
discretion on fence preference, regards whether or not the common area identified by
the Ten Mile feeder canal is -- if the developer is required to put perimeter fencing on
the southerly border of that canal, we would prefer wrought iron, so that we are not
looking at a vinyl fence right at the base of our -- at the end of our properties. However,
if they are not required to fence the southerly side of that canal and they are only
required to fence behind their properties, that's a little bit different and that's where
opinions vary. So, a lot of it has to do with what the city determines to be the proper
placement of that fence, whether it's dead on the perimeter of what they are counting as
their common area or if it's only on the northerly bank of that canal.
De Weerd: It's on top of that berm.
Deadman: No, it's got nothing to do with the berm. I'm addressing the canal, please.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Canning: It's that the same detail?
De Weerd: I thought that was the south side.
Deadman: That's the south side of Zaldia Lane, but I'm referring to the main feeder
canal that's -- I'm not seeing a picture of the whole subdivision here.
De Weerd: No. One more.
Deadman: Go up to -- do you have the color one? The color diagram? There was a
picture with a full color detail -- there we go. Okay. The canal is the southerly edge
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 45 of 58
here with these four or five acre plats. Now, if the developer is required to fence on the
southern border of that canal, we would prefer wrought iron. If they are required to
fence only the base of each of their individual identified home sites, that is the northerly
border of that canal and, then, that's where opinions vary, because that fencing
probably should be a private type of fence and be, you know, a vinyl, but none of the
property owners along Zaldia would like to look at a vinyl fence right on the back of their
property line, between them and the water feature that we all bought into by bordering
our properties on the canal. That's my main point.
De Weerd: Anna, why is this -- while he's up here, do you want to say what our
ordinance suggests? And that's on the property line.
Canning: I think the issue here is that they have both sides of the property -- or my
understanding is they would just fence the back of their lots, that they wouldn't have to
be required to do another fence on the south side of the -- but there seems to have
been discussions that might have gone on already with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District, so -- Mr. Elliott is looking at me like there might have already been discussions
regarding this, so I'm going to let him give more definite --
De Weerd: Okay. Since you have not testified, yes. Boy, we got through that list really
quick, now we are just going at it again. Please state your name and address.
McKee: My name is Sharon McKee. I live at 3895 South Gideon in the Dartmoor
neighborhood.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKee: I have been a primary negotiator with Vision First in making this agreement
happen and I hear Anna discuss two things and I understand their concerns, because
it's about them going to the neighbors and finding out what the neighbor wants. I would
like to ask you that we are kind of in a gentlemen's agreement at this point that I can go
to all the neighbors and find out and help Vision First conclude, so that Planning and
Zoning and staff have the finality of what the fences are, so it's not so abstract in their
actual agreement and we can get it definitive and I'm sure Mr. Wayne Hinkleberg will
agree to me accomplishing that task for him, won't you? And, then, the other condition I
heard her say was the weed eradication program. I have to say that's a great passion
of mine, because my property is consistently destroyed by those noxious weeds behind
my house and I guess I would like to suggest that weed eradication program, how would
they enforce it? While I don't necessarily expect them to enforce it, but I think all we can
expect from the developer is to put a system in place, say like a contract, this is our
weed eradication program and hand it over to the homeowners association and, then,
that can be, again, defined as being a definitive parameter that they just have to check
off their list. So, it's -- what she's objecting to, if I heard her right, is things that are
obscure in our contract and, believe me, this has been a -- not an easy process and
there are some things that need further clarification and I'm quite sure, even if you
choose to approve this tonight, that myself and a few of the key people can continue to
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 46 of 58
work those issues out with Vision First in terms who wants what fence, where, and what
type. If that's okay with you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have a question for the young lady. Can I get an answer?
McKee: I'm sorry.
Bird: Maybe the gentleman before, but -- that lives up next to that. Do you have
fencing now, other than just agricultural fencing along the -- just barbed wire? I can't -- I
don't know why we would want to require them to fence the south side over there. You
wouldn't want -- I don't think you want two fences. I don't know if Nampa-Meridian will
let you have two fences like that and I certainly wouldn't want my backyard fenced into
the canal. So, I think it's going to have to be the fencing on the north of each place and
just leave the -- but I don't think Nampa-Meridian is going to let you fence both sides.
De Weerd: We can't -- Mr. Bird, don't talk to the audience.
Bird: I was talking to her.
McKee: I found a pair of glasses, if that helps. Did you have a question for me?
Bird: I was just asking about the fencing and I got my answer.
McKee: Thank you.
De Weerd: Yeah. Thank you for providing him that answer,
Bird: I appreciate that.
Rountree: What was it?
Bird: Barbed wire.
De Weerd: Okay.
these items and --
Would the applicant like to come up and respond to a couple of
Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record, I'm
Ken Elliott on behalf of the applicant. A couple of quick responses and, then, I'd like to
also have our engineer respond to the drainage question that Mr. Stott raised. I would
like to point out to the Council, though, that Mr. Stott's correct, we originally did have our
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 47 of 58
storm detention basin in the northwest corner. We moved it after the Planning and
Zoning hearing last fall in response to Mr. Stott's testimony in opposition to having it
against his back fence. He said there would be mosquitoes, there would be stench,
there would be the possibility of it overflowing in a hundred year flood event and
flooding onto his property. So, we intentionally moved it to the interior of our site. As
we have now reconfigured the streets, it turns out it's in a much better location for
engineering and storm detention and control reasons and Gordon Bates, our project
engineer, will address those. But we are retaining all of our storm drainage on site, as
required by the code. We will be grading the perimeter lots in a way that they drain to
our streets and, then, the storm water is picked up in our streets and retained on site.
So, the reason for no buffer on the west side abutting Dartmoor as this project has
evolved, those were originally the largest -- and still are among the largest lots in the
entire project. So, we agreed to the single story houses and a 25 foot rear yard setback
to accommodate the views that the Dartmoor neighbors wanted to preserve and, then, a
solid fence, so that they wouldn't have to look into our backyards. So, we think that we
have -- we have done what we can. We have reduced the number of residential lots
along that boundary from six down to four. So, we now have four half-acre lots abutting
against three one acre lots and we think that's a fairly good transition. Again, I'll let
Gordon Bates address the engineering reasons for having the storm retention on the
interior of our project. On the fencing there are some perimeters that haven't been
settled and we are -- as Sharon McKee suggested, we will work that out with the
adjoining property owners. We have a general statement in the settlement agreement
that we will -- we will abide by a consensus of the wishes of those owners. We don't
particularly want to put two fences up along the canal. We own the canal. That's part of
the fee ownership that we purchased. It's subject to the Nampa-Meridian easement, but
the 60 foot strip along the south part of the Palfreyman field is part our land. So, we'd
like to do something that meets the requirements of Nampa-Meridian, while also abiding
by a consensus of the adjoining owners. That's all. If I could invite Mr. Bates to talk
quickly about storm runoff, I'd like to --
Bird: I want to ask him a question.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird has a question.
Bird: Okay. Let's get the height on these single story houses --
Elliott: Oh.
Bird: -- settled right now, because that has -- the city has ran into problems with that
before. Do we -- you know, what is the height with a bonus room? A bonus room, in
my interpretation, is that it's -- with a bonus room it's still a single story, but you get the
heights up, so what kind of height do we want to settle on? I think that's only fair for
these people around -- for the neighbors. Let's get a height settlement as to what a
single story on the exterior is.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 48 of 58
Elliott: Madam Mayor, Councilor Bird, we are prepared to stipulate to no bonus rooms.
We meant what we said when we said single level and we are prepared to say that
there won't be any bonus rooms over the garages. We would like to preserve the right
to have the tall type cathedral ceilings and roof lines the way other single story houses
in the area have, but we can add to the provision in our CC&Rs where we talk about
single story saying -- and that means no bonus rooms on a second level.
Bird: But these are -- excuse me. Go ahead. You can take -- without a bonus room
you can be taller by the pitch of your roof.
Elliott: That's correct.
Bird: So, you have got to have a roof height, a maximum roof height on a single story. I
don't know what it is.
Rountree: It's in our ordinance.
Bird: It's in -- our ordinance -- it isn't in our ordinance.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, could you see if there is any mention to roof height on our
ordinance?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our building height for -- is measured
differently for different types of roofs. For a standard pitched roof it's measured midway
between the peak and the eaves. Our standard for the zone is 35 feet, though, so --
Bird: Is what?
Canning: Thirty-five feet. It's the standard height.
Bird: For a single story?
Canning: No. That's just for the zone. That's all we have, is what I was trying to say.
Bird: Well, see, that's what I thought. You know, 35 feet, that can be two stories easy.
De Weerd: Quit talking to the audience. Dean is going crazy over there.
Bird: But you got -- you got a 35-foot max in our zone. We need to set something on a
-- what kind of pitch, how big -- the pitch makes -- I mean you can have a single story
house and I suppose you could get -- there is -- you know, there is cabins and stuff up
where there is a lot of snow, it's probably 35-foot tall, because of the pitch they have
and the open ceiling, I don't want to have a problem like we had a couple years ago. I
want -- if this is a big problem with the neighbors -- and I think it is -- I want a height set
on what a one story building on the exterior can be. And that's from grade to top of roof.
Top of pitch of roof. Of the crown.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 49 of 58
De Weerd: I guess the problem we had before was not necessarily the pitch, it was the
bonus room, so --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Elliott, could you just real quickly address the pitch of the roof within your
CC&Rs. Maybe that will help.
Elliott: We have a minimum pitch, I believe, rather than a maximum, because,
generally, the idea is to -- that the more dramatic the pitch, the more desirable the
houses and the neighborhoods are. So, I think we have a minimum of six to 12. I think
we could stipulate to a -- I'm thinking of Two Rivers, I believe, has an eight to 12 or a --
if that would be acceptable, plus a -- say a 12-foot maximum ceiling, I think that would
keep it well under -- somewhere between 20 to 25 feet, which would be Well below the. --
any sort of a level that two stories would contemplate. And, again, that would be4 the
top of the pitch, so you only have maybe a quarter to a third of the overall expanse of
the house getting up to that height the more dramatic the pitch is.
De Weerd: Councilman Wardle, did you have anything further?
Wardle: That satisfies my concerns, Mr. Bird.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. As long as -- as long as it is known, you know, that there is a certain -- I
think you got to have a height. I just -- we have had two problems in the city since I
have been on the Council and both of them have -- I know one was supposedly the
bonus room, but it was also a height. And it was a window. But it was -- and both of
them was from lacking not getting stuff on the final plat.
De Weerd: Did you want your engineer to --
Elliott: Yes, please.
Bates: My name is Gordon Bates. I work for the Land Group. Address is 462 East
Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I'd like to address Councilman Bird's concern on final plat
notes and as Anna stated, the Ada County surveyor John Priester, routinely strikes, at
his discretion, planning and zoning notes, as he calls them. It puts the city and
requirements they would like to see on property in a difficult situation. I'm not sure that
myself or anybody besides Mr. Priester and perhaps' a large consortium of city officials
could come to an agreement on that. But I do know that he will stop a plat in its tracks
at his desk until it changes. And it appears he has sole discretion on that, much to
several people's chagrin. On the drainage, actually, Kirby Kirkham is a professional
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 50 of 58
engineer in our office, as am I. He was not at the Public Hearing. He was informed as
to the changes on the plats and the why's and the neighborhood concerns, and et
cetera, He did the professional engineering on the slopes of the roads, the sewers, et
cetera. The road to the east is up on a ridge and as this road comes towards the
northwest, it drops off of that ridge, that is why there is a swell at this location to capture
the runoff coming off these streets that comes down to this point. It effectively stops
runoff from this higher ridge from continuing westward. The streets that are on the
westerly side of this portion, there is a low point down here where we connect to
Dartmoor Drive, we have got a storm swale here to collect that. I believe it's roughly
these streets here. There will be another storm swale within this common area, exact
location is yet to be determined, that will catch the majority of the street runoff coming
this direction. The swale that we had in this corner is no longer receiving a large
amount of water. These other streets have cut that water off and -- rather than to other
locations. Therefore, our underground seepage bed in this common lot underneath the
pathway, subject to ACHD approval, ACHD easements and license agreements, how
that storm water will be handled for the streets that break this direction, roughly like this.
I, unfortunately, do have to correct my client slightly. Ken Elliott stated that the back of
these lots up here would be graded to slope into these streets and drain this. direction. I
believe that the back portions of these, as stated, are significantly lower than this street
could possibly be, so you will have some grassy areas behind the houses in that 25-foot
setback that's been agreed to that will naturally percolate their own water, very similar to
existing pasture land or anything like that would do. As a professional engineer, I don't
see that small of an area creating any type of flood hazard for the adjacent neighbors
any different than any existing open field would do. Actually, having perennial grasses
in that area will help attenuate getting the storm water to percolate, rather than sayan
open field in the middle of winter that doesn't have any -- any plant growth on it yet. So,
I think that we are addressing the city and the Ada County Highway District concerns
regarding drainage, we will meet their requirements, and that's how the drainage in that
area is addressed. If there is any other questions from the Council, I would be available
to answer those.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Bates: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Final remarks, Mr. Elliott?
Elliott: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ken Elliott again. We are trying to
come up with some guidance to address Councilor Bird's remarks about the building
height. In fact, Mr. Kell is out in his car trying to get some building plans for us, if --
maybe we could even take a two minute recess for him to return. But what we'd like to
recommend, subject to the Council's approval, is that there would be an absolute
maximum of 25 feet for a peak and that no more than one-third of any elevation, any
Meridian City Council
April 12.2005
Page 51 of 58
side view, would reach that, so that that would be the very top and most of it would be
well below that and we would have a maximum pitch of eight to 12.
De Weerd: Council, I think I'll just call a ten-minute recess and reconvene.
Bird: That's fine with me, Mayor. I just think this is very important to get it settled.
De Weerd: My prerogative. So, we will reconvene in ten.
(Recess.)
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and reconvene the Council meeting. Hello? Mr.
Elliott? Mr. Elliott? Would someone like to get the developer's attention back there? I
know, you guys would like to go home, but so would we.
Elliott: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we -- after discussing and looking at
plans and talking about pitches, we have -- we are prepared to put in all of our CC&Rs
and in the conditions of approval that there would be a 25 foot maximum peak and,
then, a ten to 12 maximum pitch. The thought from a couple of builders here tonight is
that that gives us a chance to create some more dramatic roof lines and that eight to 12
makes it a little too shallow as a cap. So, that's the recommendation. So, that would be
a full story below the 35 feet, which would contemplate a two story house, we are
saying we will keep it ten feet below that -- any peak would be that far below it and,
then, most of the roof is going to be much further below it than that.
De Weerd: Council?
Elliott: And also no -- no bonus rooms. We are talking about a single level. So, we are
not adding rooms on top of garages and having pop-outs.
Bird: And that's just these -- excuse me. Just the ones on the exterior lots?
Elliott: Correct. Yes. This would be on the 22 perimeter lots that we have designated
for single story.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, did you have any further questions or information needed?
Thank you. Staff, did you have anything further?
Canning: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Seeing nothing else, Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing
on Items 13, 14 and 15.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 52 of 58
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Items 13 through 15. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I'd first like to take a moment to say, not
prematurely like others did, but it seems like we are close to success, if not at success,
and I'd like to take an opportunity to thank the public that was involved and the folks that
took the time out of your evening to come here and sit through this process, even
though we thought and have resolved your issues and thank you to the developer for
taking the time and the effort -- and I know it's a large effort, to coordinate with this
many individuals and come to a group consensus. Having said that, Madam Mayor, I
would move that we approve Item 13, AZ 05-003, for Kingsbridge Subdivision -- and I
need some help from counsel. Do we have all of the stipulations with the annexation or
with the preliminary plat?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Rountree, I think we are
probably going to need a few weeks to get the findings put together with the minutes.
There has been a number of different concessions where, obviously -- or part of the
annexation is going to be this development agreement that will incorporate the
settlement agreement, as well as some of the other issues raised as to building height
limitations and the like. So, it would be my preference if you gave us a few weeks to get
those processed and returned. At least three weeks.
Rountree: To continue with my motion --
Nary: Mrs. Canning had something else to add, if you don't mind, Councilman
Rountree.
Canning: I'm sorry, Councilmember Rountree.
Rountree: It's about time.
Canning: I just wanted to say if you're in disagreement with anything you heard tonight,
your motion would be the time to let us know that. Otherwise, we will just go based on
what we have heard tonight.
Rountree: Continuing with the motion. That we incorporate the items from First Vision
in their April 6th letter,as it relates to the annexation, having staff direct those
Meridian City Council
April 12.2005
Page 53 of 58
comments to the appropriate conditions of approval, the final plat conditions, and
CC&Rs. Also incorporating the most recent comments from First Vision of April 12th,
directing staff to do as previously stated with conditions of approval, final plat, CC&Rs.
Also incorporating -- excuse me. Also having a recommendation to provide a maximum
peak height of 25 feet and allowing pitches of 10-12 on the single story houses on lots
so designated. Directing the developer to develop a weed control and maintenance
plan for the undeveloped areas of the subdivision. Incorporate the terms of the
settlement agreement, minus the provision for the weed control and with the
understanding that the developer, through his representatives, will work out fencing
types with adjacent neighbors and that settlement agreement is as of -- dated April 12th.
Further question for council. I have a stipulation I'd like to have on the final plat as it
relates to drainage. Do I do that with the annexation as well?
Nary: To be safe, Councilmember Rountree, yeah, I would include that in your motion
for both.
Rountree: And I would also further direct the developer to develop a grading and
drainage plan for the lots on the northwest corner of the subdivision. Is there anything I
have left out?
De Weerd: On those four lots.
Rountree: Four--
De Weerd: Five.
Rountree: Five lots in the northwest corner. Yes.
Wardle: I'd like to second that motion, Madam Mayor, and -- very thorough motion and I
also appreciate the efforts that the developer has gone to and the public input and the
neighborly conduct that we have seen and heard and that even have in writing here this
evening. So, I appreciate everyone's efforts.
De Weerd: Thank you. So, the motion is to approve. Is there any further discussion?
Staff, did we cover all the elements? Good job, Mr. Rountree. Okay. Ms. Clerk, will
you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 54 of 58
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 14 for PP 05-004, preliminary plat, subject to
the conditions outlined for the annexation and zoning and including the comments from
the staff and the developer.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 14. If there is no further discussion,
Ms. Clerk?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 15.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 15 for Conditional Use Permit 05-004, for
Kingsbridge Subdivision, subject to staff comments and developer's comments at the
hearing this evening.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is approve Item 15. Ms. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Again, I would like to congratulate the neighbors and the developer to --
working together you really set a great model and I know we didn't address every single
concern, but appreciate the willingness to work together, compromise, and find a middle
ground, Thank you.
Item 16:
Ordinance No. 05-1139 Licensed Alcohol Establishments
and Prohibitina Two License Establishments within the Same
Premise: (First Reading - Public Comment will be Accepted)
De Weerd: Items 16, 17 and 18 are ordinances 05-1139,1140,1141 and 1142. Ms.
Clerk, will you, please, read these ordinances.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 55 of 58
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: I believe that we are having a first reading for Item No.16.
Bird: That's right. By itself.
Wardle: And would read that by itself.
De Weerd: Okay. We will go ahead and ask the clerk to, please, read Item 16 by title
only.
Green: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 05-1141,
an ordinance amending Title 3, Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Meridian City Code,
regarding amending the requirements for licensed alcohol establishments and
prohibiting two licensed establishments within the same premise, providing a savings
clause and providing for a summary and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard Ordinance 05-1141 read by title only. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety or provide public comment on this ordinance?
Hearing none --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Just to put on the record, I did speak with Mr. Bates from the Backwater Saloon
this afternoon very briefly and he had asked the question that Council member Donnell
had asked last week is how might that affect his property and I told him that if he
believed there was a problem he certainly had the opportunity this week or over the next
two weeks to provide comment to the Council, that all that we were seeking was that it
would require an address, that there may be other requirements to them having an
address at that location, whether it be a separate entrance or the -- some other public
access, ADA access, or something like that. So, he was satisfied with that. He may
return if he has some issues or concerns, but I did want to make the Council aware that
was the only comment I have received to this point, so --
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr, Nary, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question on process. I know we are looking at a second and third
reading. Can we move to combine the second and third reading? We have no one
here tonight. I'm guessing that that's going to be the same situation next week. Is there
some comfort in protracting this out? I don't --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 56 of 58
Wardle: Council member Rountree, I would certainly be comfortable doing that,
although I just heard Mr. Nary say that he told a member of the public that they would
have a second and third reading to comment to.
Bird: It was in the paper this morning.
Nary: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there was an editorial in the
Statesman today in a separate box that they outlined that the Council would be hearing
this over three readings over three weeks and listed the dates.
Rountree: Okay.
Nary: So, you're free to do that, but we have given that expectation.
Rountree: I didn't read the gray box. I read the rest of it.
De Weerd: I didn't read the gray box either.
Wardle: Mr. Nary?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor? Do we need a motion to move this to second reading, Mr.
Nary?
Nary: No. It automatically will be on for second reading.
Wardle: Thank you.
Item 17:
Ordinance No.
05-1140
: Solid Waste Collection Proaram:
Item 18:
Ordinance No. 05-1141 AZ 04-035 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Klamath Basin
Subdivision by Randy by Worden - 4625 West Ustick Road:
Item 19:
Ordinance No. 05.1142 AZ 04-034 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 19.63 acres from a RUT zone to a R-8 zone for Hacienda
Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I will go ahead and ask the clerk to, please, read Items
17,18 and 19 by title only.
Green: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 05-1140,
an ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending the following sections of Title 4,
Public Health and Safety, Chapter 1, Sanitary Service system of the Meridian City
Meridian City Councit
April 12,2005
Page 57 of 58
Code, to wit: Sections 4-1-6 through 4-1-23 and adding Section 4-1-1, Title, Section 4-
1-2, Purpose and Intent, Section 4-1-3, Applicability, Section 4-1-4, Regulatory
Consistency, and Section 4-1-5, Severability. And providing for a summary of the
ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective
date.
Green: Ordinance No. 05-1139, an Ordinance AZ 04-035, Klamath Basin Subdivision,
for property located in the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 3,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as
described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada
County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land
use zoning classification of said land from RUT, Ada County, to R-4, Medium Density, in
the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the
Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission,
as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a
waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
Green: Ordinance No. 05-1142, an Ordinance AZ 04-034, Hacienda Subdivision, for
property located in a portion of the west half of the northwest quarter of Section 30,
Township 4 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as
described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories currently situated
in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land
use zoning classification of said lands from RUT, Ada County, to R-8, Medium Density,
in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of the ordinance shall be filed with the
Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission,
as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a
waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard Items 17, 18 and 19, ordinances, by title only.
Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Thank you. Hearing none,
I would entertain a motion to approve these ordinances.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinances 05-1140, 05-1139, 05-1142, with suspension of
rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Ordinances 17, 18 and 19. Mrs. Clerk, will
you, please, call roll.
Meridian City Council
April 12,2005
Page 58 of 58
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you so much. I would entertain a motion to adjourn
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
~~D ------------ OAf. M:OJE ~ €>
~'? e-.,,' hu,"'" ~
~~~.
'.hUES D: ~Á . ~r;-.
.. SJSAü . J.ILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK
\:t.. .f-
\'~11Jf'~~
,~~.....".
~_.........